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. 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
My recollection of the '99 referendum was not that the idea of a republic per se was voted down, but rather Howard's preferred model of a republic; a very clayton's model indeed.
As evidenced by virtually every referendum since federation, Aussies hate giving pollies more power than they already have.
I find it difficult to believe there is any government in Oz which wants a H.of S with genuine powers to make parliaments genuinely answerable to the people.
This article correctly addresses the great challenge: to achieve a genuine people's republic, not because of republican politicians, but in spite of them.
Posted by Grim, Tuesday, 22 April 2008 7:51:33 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
I do wonder why this discussion about the Republic has risen its head ugly again and why Rudd has indicated that it will be put to the public within two years.
I also wonder why the reasons for the resignation of the Governor General was never made public as I was made aware if his resignation and the reasons why two weeks before the media made it public.
The only reason the issue has been raised again is to try and prevent the prosecution of the crimes that have already been committed by this rat-bag mob in their attempt to subvert the authority of the Constitution in creating the Republic in all of its vile forms but not officially. They need the official vote to make it legal as it has existed for many years and this referendum is only attempt to wash away all of the vile offensive conduct orchestrated by people in very high places in the legal profession throughout the country over a very long period of time. These same grubs have ended up in the Judiciary and have willingly disregarded their oath of office.
Phone the Gov Gen's office and ask why he was not allowed to leave after resigning and who prevented him for walking out.
What was it that he did not want to do and resigned in protest ?
Posted by Young Dan, Wednesday, 23 April 2008 2:19:50 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
“The Assembly participants were chosen at random through a process designed to ensure that they were truly representative of the Province.” Oxymoronic. Would the 'randomly chosen' be sworn in under the same oath as the politicians, the oath in the Schedule to the Constitution?

Inherent in the prospect of all appointments becoming elective under a republic is that a conflict of interest would exist when taking future action to set aside any election tainted with suspicion of electoral impropriety. All the ingredients for a Zimbabwean-like situation would be present from day one of year zero of the republic. A 'president' would sit in judgement on the validity of his or her own election, or, conceivably worse, in judgement of the election of a legislature having, on the face of it, a majority hostile to the political stance of the 'president'. Instability. Potential conflict. Paralysis of government.

Under the Constitutional Monarchy there is no prospect of the paralysis of government in this, or any other, situation, as Australia found out in 1975. It is this power, latent only the vast bulk of the time, that ensures that politicians remain only our representatives; our equals but not our masters. A nation ruled by law, not by personalities or dogma.

The vast majority of the politician class completely dismiss the possibility of endemic electoral rigging, of course, for if it ever was found to have been true their careers would be seen to have prospered under a system of falshood and deception. The disturbing thing is, however, that under legislation providing for statutory reporting of electoral enrolment accountancy, at the time of the 1987 Federal elections serious discrepancies (200,000+) were found to exist.

In the months prior to the recent Federal elections those same statutorily required reports were either not published in the Government Gazette, or the relevant editions of the Gazette were not made available to the public BEFORE THE ELECTIONS in the now normal online manner. This latter apparent failure in compliance leads to questions as to whether like enrolment discrepancies were being concealed from public view in 2007.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Wednesday, 23 April 2008 8:47:35 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
" Under the Constitutional Monarchy there is no prospect of the paralysis of government in this, or any other, situation, as Australia found out in 1975. It is this power, latent only the vast bulk of the time, that ensures that politicians remain only our representatives; our equals but not our masters. A nation ruled by law, not by personalities or dogma "

What makes you believe that any alternative system, the quasi republic we have now, is going to be different ?

The same individuals who are subverting the authority of our Constitution and ignoring the laws of this country are behind this republican agenda. the upper class of the legal profession and other criminals, who believe that they know better than the politicians we have elected, and blatantly ignore the law. They believe they are above the law.

We only have a nation ruled by law when we have a judicial arm of government with properly constituted COURTS in accordance with the legislation passed by the Parliament and the individual appointed as a judge is bound by his or her oath of office. The alternative process, tribunals,are what is being provided in this quasi-republic and it is created by the failure to comply with the rule of law when the court is created thus allowing the pretend court to make judgments in accordance with Govt POLICY and not the rule of law.

The paralysis of government has been created by these people who don't agree and have refused to accept the Westminster system of government that the Constitution provides.

If the State Governors and the Gov-Gen were to discharge their duty and abide by their oath of office they have sworn when appointed we may not have the situation that exists in this country that most people are not happy with.

We don't have either system at the moment but without the judicial arm of government we don't have the Westminster system of government that the Constitution provides either. We just have a bunch of criminals feeding off the people who pay the taxes to feed these grubs.
Posted by Young Dan, Wednesday, 23 April 2008 3:29:17 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
Plerdsus,

Sorry for creating puzzlement.

Can you give me a national library reference, or confirm who the issuing authority was for the pamphlett on the 1999 referenda 'Yes' and 'No' cases you have? I have never seen one, and I remember I enquired at the time.

The matter of apparent failure to gazette the monthly publication of Divisional enrolment levels is raised in a Democratic Audit of Australia discussion paper, 'The Importance of Boundaries', by Professor Emeritus Colin Hughes, downloadable as a PDF from http://democratic.audit.anu.edu.au/

Professor Hughes refers, toward the bottom of page 8. of this PDF document, to the monthly publication of enrolment levels in the Commonwealth Government Gazette as having recently stopped. "To allow public scrutiny of the third possibility, each month current enrolments of all divisions were published in the Government Gazette though this has recently stopped.10"

His footnote, numbered 10, was:

"Peter Brent and Simon Jackman, 2007, A shrinking Australian electoral roll, Discussion Paper 11/07,
Canberra, Democratic Audit of Australia, Australian National University."

When you go to the footnoted reference, 'A shrinking Australian electoral roll', on page 2 you get the statement: "The AEC publishes monthly enrolment totals, ..." and the footnote, numbered 3, reads: " http://www.aec.gov.au/Enrolling_to_vote/Enrolment_stats/index.htm last visited 14 June 2007. Note the AEC site was redesigned in June 2007 and now gives current, but not past, enrolment data." This reference is also downloadable from http://democratic.audit.anu.edu.au/

It seems hard to believe that the AEC would not have fulfilled this statutory requirement. The fact remains, however, that the Government Notices edition of the Gazette, in which these certifications are published, was not available online on those occasions when I attempted to access it during the months leading up to the 2007 elections. I presume Hughes to know what he is talking about.

The 1987 enrolment discrepancies are documented in Submission 161 to the Inquiry into the Conduct of the 2004 Federal elections, here: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/em/elect04/subs.htm
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Wednesday, 23 April 2008 4:20:48 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
We want only a simple, clear question. Do you want republic? YES!
No more cheap tricks. No more divisions between republicans.
DO YOU WANT REPUBLIC? YES!
Posted by ASymeonakis, Wednesday, 23 April 2008 8:12:46 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
Do we want a republic? No.
Do we need a republic? No.
Are we going to be stupid enough to vote for a republic without knowing what sort of republic we are voting for?
Yes, if debate is stifled - which is what republicans want.
Asking people to vote in favour of a republic without explaining the model is outrageous as well as totally and utterly undemocratic.
We could end up with a choice yes, but a choice between two equally bad models - and no way of saying no to both.
Posted by Communicat, Thursday, 24 April 2008 5:23:19 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
Forrest Gumpp,

The issuing authority for the Yes/No case for the 1999 republic referendum, according to the paper copy that I am looking at at present, was the Australian Electoral Commission. I am sure that if you apply to them, they will be able to provide a WORD or PDF copy of the pamphlet. If you can advise an email address, I would be happy to forward you a WORD version for your information, but you may well prefer to get one from the AEC directly. They have a statutory duty under the Referendum (Constitutional Alteration) Act provisions to provide this at each referendum, and they did so in this case. What more can I say.
Posted by plerdsus, Friday, 25 April 2008 10:57:29 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 few points of confusion in some of the above posts.

Choosing people at random does not make the group representitive, but it makes it very highly probable that it will be representitive. This is a question of statistics. For example if you wanted to know the average height of an Australian, just measure the average height of 100 randomly selected people. The result will be very, very close to the actual number and a mathematican could work out how close.

Of course if you wanted to design a new Opera House (something involving great skill or creative ability) choosing 100 people at random is not the best idea. It far better to run a design competition or create a panel of accomplished architects.

Greg Barns and Anna Krawec-Wheaton seem to be mixing up obtaining the desired outcomes against the actual technical detail. The 100 people will desire a republic (or not); they may want to elect the Head of State (or not); they may want the Head of State to be independent (or not); They may want the governor-general's role to be the same (or not).

The technical question is then to design a constitution that would meet these requirements.

Of course instead of getting what 100 people want (and get close to the answer), why not survey all the people and get the total answer? Then the technical people can design a constitution that would meet these requirements of all the people, not some.

This is not a radical idea. This is how professional people meet the expectations of their clients every day.

See McGarvie's book 'Democracy' for more on this point: http://www.mup.unimelb.edu.au/democracy

And for a great republican system: www.7gs.com/copernican
Posted by David Latimer, Friday, 2 May 2008 11:33:51 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. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

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