Mr Hlavka,

I fully realize the importance of a Constitution.
But that's not the point here - (what I think).
Australia will decide as to what amendments have to
be made if any, when (and if) it chooses to have
a Republic or not.

As I keep repeating over and over again. The topic
of this thread is ideas for the design of a new flag.
Should Australia want one in the future.

Anyway, I'm bowing out of this discussion because I'm
beginning to sound like a broken record.

Mr Gerrit Etc: << In my published books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series... >>

Speaking of broken records... Gerrit, did you have anything to do with the TV series as well?

I really like INSPECTOR-REX.

Foxy,

the surname is Schorel-Hlavka not Hlavka.
.
You do not seem to get it that the flag and the anthem are embedded in the Constitution and regardless what the Queen and/or politicians may other wise pretend it cannot be changed. Section 128 does not permit a referendum for this either.
.
Keep in mind that laws that are unconstitutionally enacted are of no legal value. I proved this in court when the court upheld on 19 July 2006 that the Commonwealth has no constitutional powers to force anyone to vote.
I am not against voting but I am against being unconstitutionally force to vote! And again the court upheld my rights in that regard.
.
Good luck on you if you can get around the constitution in a lawful manner but I for one do not see how you can do this unless you follow what I did already publish.

Dear Mr Gerrit Hendrick Schorel-Hlavka,

According to the following website:

http://www.peo.gov.au/students/cl/constitution.html

And I quote:

" The Australian Constitution can be changed
by referendum according to the rules set
out in Section 128 of the Constitution.

If a majority of people in a majority of
states and a majority of people across
the nation as a whole vote yes (called a
double majority), then the part of the
Constitution in question is changed. Otherwise
the Constitution remains unchanged.

Since 1906, when the first referendum was held,
Australia has had 19 referendums in which 44
separate questions to change the Australian
Constitution have been put to the people.
Only 8 changes have been agreed to. Covering
such topics as Senate elections, Aboriginals,
and the retirement of judges."

In other words only the Australian people can
amend it (by referendum).

I now politely request that you do me the courtesy
of considering this subject closed.

Foxy,

Like Pandora, you may well have figuratively owned the box, but once opened .....

The Constitution is something in which all Australians have a stake. It is not a subject upon which anyone can just close off discussion once discussion has been effectively invited.

I can understand that the words you have quoted from the website to which you have provided a link would appear to determine the matter as to the conditions required to be met for alteration of the Constitution. The problem is that they are not the words of Section 128 of the Constitution itself. And therein lies the problem.

That part of Section 128 that expresses what the linked website refers to as the "double majority" requirement for passage of a referendum question says something subtly different to what you have (quite faithfully) quoted. The words of Section 128 of the Constitution, with respect to the "double majority" provision, actually say:

"And if in a majority of the States a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting also approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent."

And if you think there is no difference between the words of the Constitution itself and those rehashed on that government website, let me assure you that it seems you are not alone. It would seem that the failure to note the differences has gone right to the very top of the Australian Public Service. ( I deliberately disregard the entire elected political establishment's view in this respect, for it seems pretty apparent that for quite some time it hasn't had one.)

But the difference is very real. Electors VOTING!

For nigh on a century the public service has been pushing the erroneous view that those who may have voted informally at referendums somehow haven't voted. Even though it's a secret ballot and the informal voters cannot be identified! You have voted when your name is crossed off and you have been issued with a ballot paper.

Foxy,

I actually feel a little bit guilty that I failed to tie my previous comment back to your topic in relation to the flag. Trust me, it was due only to the word limit.

I also felt guilty about not being able to thank Gerrit, not so much for his opinions as given on OLO (for as we all know, talk is cheap), but for the research and work at his own expense that has clearly been behind them. For someone who's native language is unlikely to have been English to competently discourse upon Constitutional matters represents a commendable achievment. Pity his passion for Constitutional truth is not shared by greater numbers of Australians who in all likelihood will have had a longer familial history of benefit under the British heritage the Constitution represents and entrenches.

Gerrit effectively put out the challenge, that to even canvass the idea of changing the flag may be against the law, outside of such proposal being made under proper Parliamentary privilege in debate. (The point being that in such context, electoral retribution can be taken upon members pushing change that may be genuinely unpopular or Constitutionally improper.) I think that proposition is one we could all do well to dwell upon.

In his fourth post Gerrit says: "Check out the Constitution and you find it can “naturalize aliens” but there is no power to declare/define nationality of a child born in the Commonwealth". Indeed. Not only have I, as a native-born Australian been robbed of my true Constitutional status, but perhaps as many as a million British subjects, long permanently resident in Australia and prviously entitled to vote, have been stripped of their vote since 25 January 1984!

An illegal immigrant, properly lawyered-up at taxpayer's expense, can be voting within a couple of years after having taken out Australian citizenship. An English-speaking British subject originally from the UK, coming here legally thirty years ago, and having resided permanently in Australia ever since, is stripped of the vote!

I was wrong. I should have suggested the black flag!