.

Dear ALTRAV,

.

You wrote :

« I do not mind being beholding to Britain … I like the feeling of having 'Mummy' to go crying to when something is not right. To me it's the same as writing a new Bible. The rules are set and do not change with time … If we give in to the pressure by the Republicans, we will lose any protections we so desperately need today. »
.

That’s the sentiment of many Australians, ALTRAV. But if you look at the facts, I think you will see that, as I pointed out in my previous post, our constitution is full of holes and does not offer much protection at all. Things have been fine so far thanks to our common law, our national culture, the political stability of our democracy, our secular government, and our liberal economy. But if anything were to go seriously wrong in the future, our constitution would be found wanting.

As for “Mummy”, I presume you mean Queen Ellizabeth II. The dear lady is ninety-one years old and I don’t think she could offer much protection for Australia these days. As a matter of fact, I don’t think she or her predecessors ever have – apart from helping us chase the Aboriginal peoples off their lands (not to mention the gory details).

We Australians, on the other hand, sacrificed much of our prime youth fighting numerous wars for the protection of the interests of the UK: Sudan 1885, Second Boer War, 1899–1902, Boxer Rebellion, 1900–01, First World War, 1914–18.

In the First World War alone, 38.7 per cent of our male population aged between 18 and 44 helped defend British interests. As Australia was not directly involved in the war, they were all volunteers. The total population of Australia at the time was 4.9 million.

The problem is not to “give in to the pressure by the Republicans” or the Royalists, or anybody else. It is to act responsibly and protect our country both internally and externally.

It’s realism, not ideology.

.

ALTRAV,

A big YES to both your posts. Straight to the pint and entirely true.

Banjo, I hear you but you give no comment to the risk of losing control to the elite. Unfortunately we are too many to form a consensus. In the absence of multi-partisan support, the top end of town will get to write or edit the new document at the expense of everyone else. This is a fact. It will appear a well thought out document, until it is tested, then begins the problems. I don't see these problems you speak of with the current constitution, so I will not favour a new one and certainly not from the Republican camp.

Of course those born overseas have a foreign parent or parents! And even if they do have foreign parents, are not included in the demographic of Australians born here, but with a parent, born overseas!

And two separate categories!

26% belonging to the first category the second belonging to an entirely different 45% category

So the numbers stack up!

Which should mean, the most powerful, convincing and persuasive arguments will decide what future direction we head! And with a new constitution written for a multicultural society?

Which simply has to include every first Australian! You know those folk who weren't included/recognised as people in the first one!

Time! Alan B.

Alan, I see a problem with your suggestion of including the abo's. If we count only those who have descended from full bloods, without any contamination of foreign blood, from the beginning till today, then we can do what you say. The number is very small and workable, but, if as an elder once suggested that he wanted all wanna-bee's to stop calling themselves aborigines, when by any definition they were not. Re-gender-ratification, and re-classification, has a lot to answer to in forging the figures in their favour, so they make money out of it. Those people you say were not included in the first one are all dead now, so the number will be greatly diminished, and more realistic.

.

Dear ALTRAV,

.

You wrote:

« I don't see these problems you speak of with the current constitution … »
.

By today’s standards, the referendum for the establishment of the constitution in 1901 was flawed :

A reputable constitutional lawyer, George Williams, indicates:

« Large sections of the community were excluded from voting, including most women and many of Australia’s Aboriginal people. Women were able to vote only in South Australia and Western Australia, and Aboriginal people in New South Wales, South Australia, Tasmania, and Victoria. Overall, only a small percentage of Australians actually cast a vote in favour of the draft Constitution. In New South Wales, Queensland, and Tasmania, the figure was below 10 per cent. »

He adds :

« The Constitution that came into force in 1901 was not a people’s Constitution, but ‘a treaty between States’. Customs duties and tariffs, and the capacity of the upper house of the federal Parliament to veto money bills, were of far greater concern than the protection of human rights. According to one historian, the drafters ‘wanted a constitution that would make capitalist society hum’. The framers were certainly not prepared to insert a Bill of Rights.

The Constitution contains few express rights. The main ones are:

s 41 – the right to vote;

s 51(xxxi) – the right not to have the Commonwealth acquire property, except on just terms;

s 80 – the right to trial by jury;

s 92 – the right that ‘trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free’;

s 116 – the right to freedom of religion; and

s 117 – the right to freedom from disabilities or discrimination on the basis of State residence.

The drafting of these provisions is in most cases problematic and restrictive.

The High Court’s approach to the civil and political rights in the above list (that is, excluding ss 51(xxxi) and 92) has been extremely narrow, with each of these rights being interpreted almost out of existence.

.

(Continued …)

.