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