RE: Danger in move on NSW Upper House

1998-11-18 Thread Albert . Langer

>[AL]
>There have also been a couple of messages offering to help get things
>going in NSW and we had lots of contacts from there in 1996.
>
>Perhaps it's time to get down to tin tacks for at least a NSW branch to
>startup immediately in response to whatever happens there while we are
>figuring out what else to do nationally?

I'm interested in working with others in NSW for a branch.

[AL]
My suggestion is that you and the other(s) that have already expressed
interest in
this proceed as follows:

1) Start a subject thread on "NSW" in this public-list specifically to
invite people
interested in helping to organize in NSW (this may turn out to involve
agreement
on a single NSW branch or on separate local groups in Sydney or parts of
Sydney and
other areas, or both - should not be prejudged). (This can easily be
moved to separate
list when necessary but meanwhile would be better here to encourage
others to setup
local groups too and ensure national liasion in the absence of a
functioning national
organization at the moment).

2) Agree among yourselves on somebody(s) to be in charge of a NSW
section of the
Neither web site which would have a URL of
http://www.neither.org/local/NSW/
(which could be the subject header for your thread even though it
doesn't exist
yet, so that people joining the public-list will immediately know where
to look
for more info when they see messages on that subject without having
followed the
thread from the beginning). If there is any delay on that, start by
opening your
own personal page(s) devoted to this and reach agreement on a common one
with
an official link as /local/NSW/ later. I believe this is very important
so that
there is something more "definate" about the people organizing Neither
in NSW
than individual email messages.

3) Expect a short delay while arrangements are made at this end for you
to be able
to independently edit that section (and for a prominent link to it to be
made from
the main Neither pages). But don't wait, start preparing documents to
put there in
the meantime - and if the delay isn't short enough, start it up on
somebody's personal
web site in the meantime - it can be easily moved later).

4) Agree among yourselves on somebody(s) to co-ordinate an initial open
meeting
of local Neither supporters and aim to call such a meeting and proceed
from there
as soon as you are confident of having say a dozen supporters turn up
and say 3-4 
core activists willing to make organizing Neither in NSW a major
priority and accept
responsibility for taking on various tasks. Exchange phone numbers and
snail mail
addresses with the agreed on coordinator(s) for further coordination off
the list as well.

5) The co-ordinators agreed on should give high priority to extracting a
NSW section
of the Neither snail mailing list, email list and phone number lists
from the central
group. This should be a major help in reaching the targets I suggest in
item 4 for
convening an initial meeting. There would probably be a couple of
hundred people
from NSW who got in touch since 1996 and at least a dozen who offered to
help or took
some local initiative of their own during the 1996 campaign who should
be followed up
by both mailout and telephone tree. 

6) Also follow up your own contacts (not just the coordinators' contacts
but those of 
everyone who expresses an interest in organizing in NSW) to get others
to join this list 
and to come to the initial meeting. Collect lists of other NSW
organizations and publications etc that you should get in touch with.

7) Take an activive interest in working out an appropriate national
structure for Neither
so that we really become one national organization rather than just
separate local groups
working independently and/or at cross purposes.

8) Take an active interest in how to make national policy that will be
followed by
local groups - as you are already doing with respect to compulsory or
optional
preferential voting discussed below - every issue Neither is involved in
as such
really is primarily national and questions like the NSW
optional/compulsory voting system
should be viewed as a local implementation of a national policy. e.g. If
you are right
that we should have a policy in favor of optional preferential voting in
NSW then we should
have the same policy in Victoria and elsewhere.

9) If you disagree with points 1-8 I still think you should start with
point 1 and
discuss an alternative approach in that subject thread - i.e. it isn't
necessary
to reach agreement with people outside NSW on how to go about starting
up a NSW
branch and/or NSW local groups - it will only be necessary to reach
wider agreement
on items 7 and 8 as to how various local groups come to be recognized as
"official"
local organizations of "Neither" as a national organization, which
depends on agreeing
on a framework for a national organization. Efforts on getting NSW
people together
will not be wasted whatever the outcome nationally, since if we fail to
work out 

RE: Danger in move on NSW Upper House

1998-11-18 Thread Albert . Langer

[DG]

I understand that the Labor and Liberal Parties are ganging up for a
referendum to reduce the size of the NSW Upper House, presumably so that
two-party ("bipartisan") control is consolidated.  (Shades of
Tasmania?).

Tinkering with representative systems is perfectly acceptable if it
strengthens the hand
of the electors and hence strengthens democracy -- even if the motive is
to
advantage one or another party.  However, it seems that the tinkering
going
on in NSW is aimed at weakening the ability of the voters to elect a
representative mixture (including independents and parties not owned by
corporate business) which reflects numerical strength in the community.

Dion Giles
Fremantle, WA

[AL]
In another message "RE: teamwork" Anita Hood wrote:

[AH]
It seems that in NSW there may be a fight to keep
optional preferential voting going at a state level.  A NSW Liberal
Barry O'Farrell reckons that One Nation have less chance under a full
preferential system and so wants NSW to change from optional
preferential voting.

[AL]
There have also been a couple of messages offering to help get things
going in NSW and we had lots of contacts from there in 1996.

Perhaps it's time to get down to tin tacks for at least a NSW branch to
startup immediately in response to whatever happens there while we are
figuring out what else to do nationally?

Neither has no policy for either compulsory ("full") or optional
preferential voting.
(I prefer compulsory myself).

Any campaign should make it quite clear that whether voters are required
to
put a number in every box or not it is a crime to attempt to coerce
voters
to vote in favor of candidates they want to vote against. If that is
what
is behind the O'Farrel then he is a criminal. Opposition to that crime
should be described as support for free elections and opposition to
coercion of voters, not as support for optional preferential and
opposition
to "full preferential".

It has been extremely difficult to get that across to the media and
Courts continue
to write judgments about it based on media reports rather than anything
before
them (as recently as 30 September).

It is important that we take a consistent line on this nationally.

Neither also has no policy on the size of upper houses. Pretense that
they were
reducing size of Parliament in Tasmania was just cover for reducing the
number of
seats for each electorate in order to raise the quota and exclude Greens
- they
could have simply reduced the number of seats and maintained current
level of
proportionality.

Presumably the reduction in size of NSW upper house is similar to
Tasmania and
should therefore be opposed by Neither as Dion suggests - but I don't
know
anything about it.

Can anyone provide more info on either of these NSW issues?




RE: Danger in move on NSW Upper House

1998-11-18 Thread alister air

At 09:41 22/10/98 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>[AL]
>There have also been a couple of messages offering to help get things
>going in NSW and we had lots of contacts from there in 1996.
>
>Perhaps it's time to get down to tin tacks for at least a NSW branch to
>startup immediately in response to whatever happens there while we are
>figuring out what else to do nationally?

I'm interested in working with others in NSW for a branch.

>Neither has no policy for either compulsory ("full") or optional
>preferential voting.
>(I prefer compulsory myself).

How can I then suggest that Neither make such a policy against compulsory
allocation of preferences?

>Can anyone provide more info on either of these NSW issues?

I didn't know that they were reducing the size... I hadn't heard anything
about it.

Alister

--

"Let us not fool ourselves, half a century after the adoption
of this Declaration (of human Rights) and supposedly under its
protection, millions of people have died in the world without
reaching the age of 50 and without even knowing that there was
a universal document that should have protected them."
 Roberto Robaina, Cuba's Foreign Minister




Danger in move on NSW Upper House

1998-11-18 Thread Dion Giles

I understand that the Labor and Liberal Parties are ganging up for a
referendum to reduce the size of the NSW Upper House, presumably so that
two-party ("bipartisan") control is consolidated.  (Shades of Tasmania?).

Tinkering with representative systems is perfectly acceptable if it
strengthens the hand
of the electors and hence strengthens democracy -- even if the motive is to
advantage one or another party.  However, it seems that the tinkering going
on in NSW is aimed at weakening the ability of the voters to elect a
representative mixture (including independents and parties not owned by
corporate business) which reflects numerical strength in the community.

Dion Giles
Fremantle, WA