The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Determining a republican model > Comments

Determining a republican model : Comments

By Greg Barns and Anna Krawec-Wheaton, published 22/4/2008

If a republican model is to be put to the Australian people, as the 2020 Summit proposes, then it must be one that emerges from a community process.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
“The Assembly participants were chosen at random through a process designed to ensure that they were truly representative of the Province.”

It’s very hard to believe that any four people from a Province, electorate or whatever could be “truly representative” of all of the other people. Just as there is no way that the ‘chosen few’ attending the 2020 Summit could have been representative of the rest of us. Most Australians would have had nothing in common with the people at the Summit.

Summits, talkfests and gatherings of people acceptable to governments representing only half of the people is a bit like having unelected people in totalitarian countries making the decisions.

Political parties have policies. If their policies are not agreed to by the electorate, they are not elected. The electorate does not need people they have not elected, and whom they do not know, making decisions for them
Posted by Mr. Right, Tuesday, 22 April 2008 10:17:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This 'deliberative democracy' proposal seems to be nothing but cover for the absence of an electoral mandate for the present Federal government to resurrect the republic issue, and, subsequently, a smokescreen for the avoidance of debate of such a fundamental issue in the only place in which it can lawfully be discussed; in Australia's parliaments, under parliamentary privilege.

I get it that parliamentary representatives do not wish to be put on the spot as to their stance on this issue. I get it that there seems to have been a long-running pre-selection process operating across party lines that has resulted in it being a high probability these days that any given representative will favour some version or other of a republic. I get it that, in the event of a republic proposal again being defeated at a referendum, Australia's career politicians that had revealed their support for such republican proposal would like to avoid the obligation that would then be upon them to resign en masse. What I don't get is why the voting public should let parliamentarians duck their responsibilities on this largely self-generated but fundamental issue.

What the authors propose is the circumvention of existing electoral legislation. The provisions of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 ensure that for every referendum question put to the people there must be a 'yes' and a 'no' case prepared and distributed to all electors. Now granted this requirement was evaded by the Howard government in the lead-up to the 1999 referenda, when it handed-off responsibility for presentation of specific proposals to a 'sort of' elected Constitutional Convention. Why should it be evaded again? Why should our parliamentary representatives escape going on record as to their position on this issue?

Why should I, or any other law-abiding elector have to participate as a non-privileged non-parliamentarian via 'deliberative democracy' in what the law proscribes as sedition? What is being proposed is the removal of the sovereign. The only place that can be proposed is within all of Australia's seven recognised parliaments.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Tuesday, 22 April 2008 10:55:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am a little puzzled by Forrest Gumpp's allegation that the requirement for a "Yes" and "No" case to be distributed to electors at the 1999 referendum was evaded, as I have a copy of the pamphlet in my possession.

However I would otherwise agree with most of his post, except for the suggestion that there could be an occasion when politicians would voluntaily resign. Resign? Cut yourself off from the gravy train? What universe do you live in? All current politicians follow the principles laid down in the 1920's by Jack Lang:

Never complain

Never explain

Never resign.

That is why he had to be dismissed from office by His Majesty's representative in 1932.

Not enough politicians seem to appreciate that a large part of the battle over the republic is the struggle between the political class and the people. In the constitution we got half of the Swiss system of constitutional amendment. The bit we missed out on was citizen initiative referendum, where the people can enact provisions into law in the teeth of the opposition of the entire political and legal class. If this were included in a republic proposal, it could gain the support of many people, including myself, if we could be convinced that it would not be promptly interpreted out of existence by the High Court.

Of course the first such referendum would have to be on bringing back hanging.
Posted by plerdsus, Tuesday, 22 April 2008 11:33:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If I read the reports from the 2020 summit then there is not going to be any consultation at all. Australians will be asked "Do you want a republic?"
The results will be rigged in favour of a republic. (Elections have been rigged before even in Australia...Queensland governments are masters of the art.)
Australians will not really know what it is they are actually for because all they will have been asked is whether they want a republic, not what sort of republic they want. They will almost certainly be voting away democracy as we know it.
I have just been e-mailed a letter which makes this point to the press. It will be interesting to see whether it is published tomorrow. My guess is that it won't be because the last thing republicans need is to have this pointed out.
Posted by Communicat, Tuesday, 22 April 2008 3:58:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"A deliberative democracy process - where ordinary citizens meet and deliberate over a period - should be utilised to maximise interest in the plebiscite and to ensure an informed vote on it."

Quite true. In order for a democracy to be effective, citizens must speak from a level of knowledge. It is this reason why Thomas Jefferson (et al) preferred the "town hall" approach to politics. It involves people, it gets them thinking and it builds a sense of community.

One of the side-effects, now oft-overlooked, is the idea of public representatives being publically accessible.

When Australia was federated every seat in parliament had less than 10,000 representative on the roll. It is very plausible that each and every member of the public could meet with their representive to express their concerns with that number. Now the average seat has over 90,000 individuals. And yet we wonder why politicians seem distant, subject to the lobbying power of powerful vested interests and so forth?

I made this point at the 2005 "Shed A Tier" conference. I believe the point is still valid.

http://au.geocities.com/lev_lafayette/0507shedatier.html
Posted by Lev, Tuesday, 22 April 2008 4:50:46 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The citizens assembly seems just crazy enough to work on this issue. It is positively Athenian with its random ballot of participants. They should be given the power of ostracism just in case they get lumbered with some of our more eccentric fellow posters.

300 seems a rather large number for effective deliberations. We might only get one actor which is a plus but it would be easy to get lost in the crowd. How many members did the BC assembly have?

In what sense would they be "representative"? As delegates or conduits perhaps? The new gov portal could make a great way of communicating and consulting their constituents.

Long live the republic!

Kevin Rennie
http://laborview.blogspot.com
Posted by top ender, Tuesday, 22 April 2008 6:59:06 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy