First, we need a Bill of Rights. This should be the first issue on which to hold a CIR.
Both major political parties have shamefully backed away from introducing it, claiming incorrectly that our parliamentary system is a guarantee of a citizen’s rights.
With a Bill of Rights people would have more chance to defend themselves in the event that a later CIR might restore for instance, capital punishment.
How could you seriously exclude a referendum on such an issue as capital punishment if, god forbid, the weight of public opinion was for it?

The problem I have in a Bill of Rights is that it places faith and power in the judiciary, not elected politicians. For this reason it could be also seen as anti-democratic. At the end of the day, a Bill of Rights would take the decision-making powers away from people and give it to judges. Judges, not people, would be deciding.

Ans, as the following post shows, judges cannot be trusted to defend our rights and liberties:

http://leonbertrand.blogspot.com/2007/09/qld-small-claims-tribunal-part-5.html

Another classic example is how Justice Kirby recently wrote a judgment invalidating a control order imposed on a former member of Al-Queda. A Bill of Rights would give more opportunities for judges to protect the rights of members of terrorist organisations over the rights of ordinary civilians.

mr murray hasn't grasped the concept of democracy.

as he points out, a plebiscite is non-binding. parliament remains the master. the point of democracy is: the citizens are the masters.

it's like black and white.

this is just empty showmanship, but it's nice to be reminded that every parliamentarian is convinced the sheep must not run the station.

Hooray for CIR! Let's look at some of the first issues that would be put to the people:

1. Bring back hanging.

2. Summary cancellation of the pensions of former politicians.

3. The salaries of current politicians to be limited to the dole (but as a special concession, they would be exempted from the work test.)

4. Political corruption to be eliminated by providing that all candidates must irrecovably assign their affairs to a public trustee, who will ensure that throughout the rest of their lives they will not live better than they did before entering politics.

5. No bill of rights to be enacted without the consent of the electors.

6. and so on.... others may feel free to add to the list.

pigs might fly!

There is a website titled UPMART which is claims the currant existance and provision of help with the tools for direct democracy. My understanding is that sites creator (Malcolm McClure) is claiming that people can already have there say utilising there own honorable will, the constitution and common law. Site claims a number of legal successes across australia including excemption from paying road tolls. Site was reffered to me by a group called HER (Honourable Electors Referendum) in Noosa Qld who are organising a "legally binding peoples referendum on the question of almagamation".

Has anyone heard of Upmart or Malcolm Mcclure?
Is he/ group credable?
Is peoples organised legally binding referendum remotly possable?

Yep,

Here's the link : http://www.upmart.org/

Go get 'em !

Andrew Murray states that the purpose of the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Democratic Plebiscites) Bill 2007 is to allow the AEC “to undertake any plebiscite on the amalgamation of any local government in any part of Australia”.

Would not this proposed legislation be unconstitutional? Does this proposal not attempt to give a form of recognition at Commonwealth level to local government? Was the question of the giving of such Constitutional recognition not one of the four referendum questions voted down, by a record level of rejection since Federation, in the September 1988 referenda?

Surely, if an alteration of the Constitution was seen as being needed in 1988 to establish local government under the Constitution, it would seem that the present government proposal lacks the necessary Constitutional authority for it to be able to take effect. By undertaking a plebiscite with respect to amalgamation of any local government area, the Commonwealth is in effect recognising the status quo of local government areas, since one outcome of any plebiscite could be that of rejection of an amalgamation proposal put up by the State government involved.

Alternatively, the Commonwealth is just proposing to spend money and apply resources for the conduct of non-binding expressions of electoral will in an area in which it has no jurisdiction. That would be to act outside its authority, and would be a waste of public money that should be prevented from occurring.

Andrew Murray seems to regard the existence of compulsory voting as some sort of safeguard in the event "democratic plebiscites" come to be part of the electoral scene. It is interesting that he observes that "In the 106 years since Federation only 17 private bills have passed." The bill that introduced compulsory voting was one of them. It passed through the Parliament in 1924 in just 15 minutes.

Could I suggest this attempt to see that plebiscites occur in Queensland concurrently with the upcoming Federal elections is to provide a means for the AEC to circumvent the 2006 roll closure amendments in that State?
See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=881#15340

http://www.nowpublic.com/little-somethin-somethin

just what it says. A little somethin' somethin'. Fuel for thought.

To IIuvator,

was that "yep" a yes to they are credable?
If so how do you know?
I was very impressed with the fellow who told me about the possability of the Noosa people organising their own referendum, Direct democracy. Is such an action possable?, has it been done before in Aust? I have not seen anything in the paper and do not know how to contact their group, he said it was called HER, can you help?

Buttons:

That was yep, as in; "Has anyone heard of Upmart or Malcolm Mcclure?"

I don't know how credible they are?

cheers.

I wonder what audio effect you have Andrew, on your email notification for posts to this thread? It would be very appropriate if it was to be the opening bars of the tune "Men of Harlech". For there is great danger in this proposal, and I for one am very grateful that you have brought the matter to my attention with your OLO article.

The more I think about it, the more it seems those behind this proposal, the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Democratic Plebiscites) Bill 2007, are playing to your otherwise commendable predilection to give electors more direct say in legislative initiatives, and thus redress the situation in which, as you say, "Australians often feel disenchanted with our political system and that they are ignored." Your predilection is admirable, but I fear you are being used.

Your job is to keep the bastards honest. The only question is which bastards?

You say, speaking of the Coalition government, that "Long term it matters not a jot that the Coalition’s motive is immediate and self-interested.". I would beg to differ. I suggest that the present government has been conned and is being used, just as you may be being used, to advance this dangerous proposal. They (the Coalition) are just desperate in the face of, to them, incomprehensibly bad opinion poll results as they seemingly inexorably approach an election deadline. Whilst bastards they may be, the Coalition may not be the RELEVANT bastards you are there to keep honest in this particular case.

I suggest the bastards you have to worry about might be best described as "Fat Controllers", people with a long-term interest in influencing overall electoral processes across the entire political spectrum in Australia, influencing with a view to determining electoral outcomes notwithstanding external expressions or assessments of public opinion indicative to the contrary. The vehicle such 'Fat Controllers' use to implement this influence may well be the AEC, or more particularly, the Central Office thereof, using its operating procedures and directives. I suggest they may be the relevant bastards you must watch.

Keep THEM honest!

TBC

Dear Forrest Gumpp

Interesting thought and post.

It only serves to highlight the incremental controls that some governments have placed on the AEC over the years.

The most recent one is the Howard government's changes to voter enrolment deadlines; that is to close the rolls the INSTANT an election is called. Too bad if you work night shift or are otherwise ill disposed on that day (and haven't updated your electoral details).

Not quite sure who that bastards are here .....

Buttons:

UPMART gives Common Law courses to make people aware of their rights.
They are needed in our society to de-ewe us all, they help you to defend yourself in court instead of having to use overcharging solicitors,etc.
Perpetuating licences, car rego's, non-payment of unlawful roadfees amongst a few.Go to their site and get on the emaillist I'd say.I would like to see they join with DDNPR as it would be a powerful "We the People" political org. (Direct Democracy not Parliamentary Rule)

continued

Your Australian Democrats predecessor on the JSCEM, former Senator Jean Jenkins, was, I understand, instrumental in foiling just such a circumvention of the Constitution back in, I think, 1990, or maybe 1992, when the then Labor government attempted by sleight of hand to transfer the authority for signing Senate election writs from the respective State Governors to the Governor-General, or, in certain circumstances, the Speaker of the House of Representatives. It was attempted under the guise of removal of gender-specific language from the Act, removing the words "His Excellency" and substituting "Governor-General" on the forms for Senate election writs in the Schedule to the Act, when the Excellency the subject of gender specificity was "His Excellency" the Governor of a State!

The Liberal Party secretariat didn't pick that one up then, and they were in opposition at the time! So don't imagine the Liberals will have been anywhere near as zealous on this occasion in adhering to Constitutional propriety.

Any involvement of the AEC in State electoral matters is presently regulated under the provisions of arrangements between the Governor-General and the Governor of the State that is party to such agreement. The Joint Electoral Roll agreements are examples.

Such agreements are not one-sided arrangements, in contrast to the current proposal. Either party is free to terminate such arrangement, after giving the agreed notice. Surprise, surprise, the Governor of Queensland is not presently in receipt of advice from her Executive Councillors to seek any agreement of the like of that proposed from Canberra!

You really should consider some of the issues raised in these links, Andrew:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=950 (whole thread)
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=881 (whole thread)
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=884#15532 (and subsequent posts)

This is attempted empire-building by the AEC. Or worse.

And they are UNABLE to close the centrally kept electoral rolls within one day!

Back to the drafting office, Andrew, you've got a whole new pack of bastards to keep honest.

Plerdsus you are very correct, if the recommendations made by you were enacted upon we would have a better Australia.Politicians of any persuasion are not or have ever been answerable for their actions.The People are ignored on a regular basis,once a party is elected constituents cease to exist until the next election.There is not a government that would place a Bill of Rights in the hands of The People.Mr McClure may be correct that people can have their say, that does not mean any notice will be taken.eg:How many have said no to uranium mining, yet more agreements have recently been signed.If Howard is re-elected Australia is looking down the barrel of having 25 reactors for a start.

Plerdsus, Dr Who:

Really? Would we have a better Australia if we, as Plerdsus suggests, bring back hanging?

I think not. Capital punishment does nothing to deter criminals, to whom this sentence is given, in those countries where this inhumane brand of justice is meted out.

It seems to me, to smack of the right wing overlord tactics of many a totalitarian regime of the past (and present).

Our country needs to be pulled back from the brink of sinking into this moral quagmire, rather than diving headlong into it.

Andrew,

It probably seems a bit of a bald assertion to say, as claimed in my previous post, that those intended to implement the claimed Democratic Plebiscites are unable to close the electoral rolls for the upcoming elections on the day of issue of the writs, in accordance with the 2006 electoral legislation amendments.

Let me be more specific.

There is, to begin with, no such thing as THE electoral roll. The electoral roll, as popularly conceived, consists of a collection of all of the rolls for all of the Commonwealth electoral Divisions throughout Australia.

The CEA has always required that the electoral roll for each Division be kept within the Divisional office, and charges the statutorily appointed officer, the DRO, with certain responsibilities in connection therewith. One of these has always been that of maintaining a fully up to date record of that roll, a record able to be inspected by members of the public, at that office. It is especially to be expected that that record should be able to be scrutinised by members of the public at 6:00 PM on the day of issue of any writ.

There is at least one historic instance of such a roll being unable to be inspected in a Divisional office on a day appointed in a writ as a day upon which a roll was to be closed. It happened, I understand, in the Division of Charlton, in 1988. The occasion was that of a roll closure for the supply of roll information by the AEC for a NSW by-election in the State Electoral District of Cardiff. The record was unable to be inspected because it was not physically present in the Divisional office at the time prescribed, nor had any purported roll information been received by the NSW State Returning Officer for that by-election at or by the time prescribed.

When the very nature of centralised electronic roll-keeping is considered, it is difficult to see how any scrutiny over the compliance by the AEC with the roll closure requirements of the Act could be maintained.

New Zealand is certainly no shining example of Direct Democracy. The only referendum that the New Zealand Govt has ever ratified was the referendum to introduce MMP Govt. The Citizens Initiated Referendum Act 1993 only permitted advisory referendums - go to www.ddp.co.nz and click on "New Zealand - Democracy or Dictatorship" for a lesson in our democratic-in-name-only recent history.

Steve Taylor,
Deputy Leader,
Direct Democracy Party of New Zealand
www.ddp.co.nz

Andrew,

My apologies for an error in my previous post. The NSW State Electoral District referred to was Wallsend, not Cardiff. Cardiff is a suburb of Newcastle that lay at that time within the State Electoral District of Wallsend.

I should add that two other Commonwealth electoral Divisions, those of Shortland and Newcastle also had sub-Divisions that comprised parts of the State Electoral District of Wallsend at the time of that 1988 by-election. What the situation was with respect to the availability of the roll in those Divisional offices for scrutiny at roll close is not known to me.

I cannot say what understanding parliamentary members of the JSCEM, and before that committee's inception, the JSCER, may have had as to the overall performance of centralised electronic roll-keeping as compared to that of the previous tried and proven compartmentalised Divisional office manual roll-keeping. My suspicion is that the changes were actually introduced before it was explained or evident to members what the changes actually entailed.

Had committee members been told that the change meant that whereas a roll could be closed (and closed under scrutiny of interested parties) at 6:00 PM on any given working day under the old manual system, but be effectively unable to be closed within the same time frame in a scrutinisable fashion under the electronic regime, would the system we now have ever have been approved? I suspect not.

What will be the situation at the upcoming Federal elections if interested members of the public make themselves known to their respective DROs and arrange to be present in the Divisional office at 6:00 PM on the day writs are issued, and take note of certain roll particulars from the mandatory record, particulars which subsequently may be shown to have changed by the time certified lists are printed for the conduct of those elections?

It seems everything about elections is being made opaque, rather than transparent. Have you seen the Diebold Variations? See: http://homepage.mac.com/rcareaga/diebold/adworks.htm Coming soon to an electoral Division near you?

Read with cynicism Andrews comments :

"...what matters long term is that the precedent and process for the formal direct expression of popular will has arrived in Australia."

Constitution s. 128 provides EITHER Senate OR House of Representatives, despite lack of support, despite opposition, from other House the authority to present a Bill for Governor-General to present for voters decision:

Section 128
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/chapter8.htm

Australian Democrats refused, or failed, exercise their swinging votes in Senate to force issues onto ballot, eg Telstra, Iraq, Nuclear Power, no grog sales on Sunday, or other issues.

Democrats failed dismally to present their opposition, their solutions, through bills seeking use s.128 to resolve the questions.

Democrat reluctance to present such bills really questions their committment to accountability, to keeping the bastards honest.

Resolution by the People is essential IF you believe Sovereign Power truly belongs to the people.

Andrew asks people support the Australian Democrats from their purported "decades-long initiatives to introduce Citizen Initiated Referenda (CIR) in defined circumstances"

I say purported, for when did the Democrats introduce and campaign for Bills using s.128 so significant issues would be presented to the people for the people to decide ?

Democrats failed their "keep the bastards honest" philosophy, failing to actively campaign for presentation of contentious issues to the people for decisions using s.128

Such Democrats failure IMHO is largely responsible for diminishing support for the Democrats.

Whilst Democrats failed, refused, to act politicaly to seek use of our Constitutions s.128 - a basic structural policy direction tool, how were they keeping to their proclaimed responsible government principals ?

With such absence in their political actions why bother voting for them ?

.

HI ILLUVATOR,
to contact the group HER email blessallways@hotmail.com

thanks shift.