With all this seemingly divergent talk about referendum results and the reporting (or lack) thereof, it has to be noted that Nigel Morris, in writing about the foreshadowed non-binding plebiscites, fails to explain the mechanism by which this trick of changing a proven and historical collective 'No' to a purported collective 'Yes' can be perpetrated against the whole populace.

The important differences between a referendum proposing alteration of the Constitution, and a non-binding plebiscite are that the rules for determining a 'Yes' vote will be different, and that the compulsion to vote at the plebiscites will in all likelihood be absent (just like it was for the election of persons to the Constitutional Convention that preceeded the holding of the 1999 referenda, at which only a minority of electors voted).

Could it be a desire to conceal from Australians at large the differences in the counting regimes as between a referendum to change the Constitution, and plebiscites being held to obtain what well may be a false mandate to throw the whole rule-book, the Constitution, into the bin, is what lies behind the seeming decision to not publish the results of the 1988 and 1999 referenda in the Year Books?

Since Federation the wording of Section 128 of the Constitution has effectively prescribed that anything other than an express and clear 'Yes' vote marked in accordance with the instructions for completing the referendum ballot paper will effectively count with the 'No' votes in determining the result of that referendum. Yet in 1999 the Australian Electoral Commission's 'Electoral Backgrounder 10' web document (a document no longer up on the website), which I understand to have been a guide to polling staff who would actually count the votes, seriously falsely recited the law of the Constitution where it said:

"29. ....... Any referendum ballot paper
that does not show either a 'Yes' or a 'No'
vote against the question(s) provided is
categorized as informal ...... That is,
such ballot papers are put aside and do not
count toward the final referendum result."

Bullsh!t

As Sir David effectively said.

Given that it is now 12 days since a comment has been posted in response to this article, I intend to use this thread in the mode of fulfilling what is increasingly becoming OLO's role, that of journal of record. My posts will, I believe, be illustrative of, or expansive upon, points brought up by the author, and so will indirectly do justice to the article. They will have a focus upon Constitutional matters, 'constitutional' being the qualifying adjective always used when describing our monarchy, whether or not that monarchy might be thought to be 'unfashionable'.

I have already foreshadowed this intention in a post to the 'Punishing poverty' thread, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10659#176717 , upon which another Constitutional issue has arisen, that of discovery of a defective alteration of the Constitution in respect of the 1946 insertion of placitum (xxiiiA) into Section 51 thereof.

Joel Tozer, author of the current OLO article 'Punishing poverty' http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10659 , says:

"While Minister Macklin has indicated that
a national roll out of income management
would not occur before late 2011, opposition
leader Tony Abbott has said that if elected
he would implement a national scheme immediately."

With the income quarantining legislation already passed, and the call of the 2010 Federal elections having been announced, this is now a very topical issue, whether or not the public yet know it.

On the 'Punishing poverty' thread OLO userID Aime made this despairing observation that:

".. the worst part of all is that no matter
how we vote at the next election, it won't
make a bit of difference. One of the top two
parties will come to power and continue to
push their dogma down our throats."

In succeeding posts I shall propose a course that could be taken with complete Constitutional propriety by the Governor-General that I contend could remove the seemingly impenetrable cloud of gloom and hopelessness as to ordinary Australian voters having a real and workable electable alternative at these upcoming elections is concerned.

Lets see whats 'unfashionable'.

The thread of course remains open for any other poster wishing to comment directly on the article.