Peter the Believer,

Two years ago almost to the day I posted the last of six comments attracted by George Williams' OLO article 'Frozen Continent', an article focussing upon the difficulty of effecting Constitutional change. I began that post with these words:

"I don't like the telling of half-truths, especially
with respect to matters touching upon the Constitution.

I must confess to having come very close to telling one myself,
in my first post in this thread, in claiming "In the nigh on
62 years since those 1946 referenda, seemingly not an iota of
recognition of the falsity of this claimed outcome on the part
of any representative or political party!"."

See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7187#110254



Two days earlier I had posted an explanation on that thread as to why the 1946 Social Services referendum had not in fact been passed when regard was had to the provisions of Section 128 of the Constitution, the Section dealing with alteration of the Constitution and referenda. That explanation may be of some use to you in checking out my somewhat bald claim to that effect in my post of Saturday, 3 April 2010 at 8:02:34 AM to this topic. The checking out of the validity of my claim is, I am assuming, the reason for delay in your responding to a post that provides a definitive answer to the question posed in your topic title. That earlier post to the 'Frozen Continent' thread can be found here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7187#110112

So far, the silence from supposed Constitutional experts like George Williams has been deafening. I am most interested in your view in this respect.

I do recall having checked that the votes as recorded on page 65 of the Commonwealth of Australia Year Book for 1946-47 were the same as on a certification of referendum results by the Commonwealth Chief Electoral Officer of the day held in the Australian Archives. They were.

I cannot understand how, unless it was the sheerest bluff, the referendum was recorded as having passed. Did no one check the figures correctly?

One gentleman has expressed an opinion that the referendum to allow the assumption of responsibility for Social Security to be assumed by the Commonwealth was not passed. My research indicates that every State and 54.39% of the electors voted yes. This means it was passed, but the two other questions asked at that referendum failed. This is published on a CD Rom available free of charge from the Australian Electoral Commission.

S 128 Constitution says that a Majority of States and a majority of electors must approve a referendum. That means that four States and a majority of electors must approve. This was achieved.

We do not need violence. We need respect for each other and a reasoned and logical approach to the Constitution. The same CD has the Constitution on it, it is available at Austlii Document Collections and online at Comlaw. That it is mostly observed by breaches of its provisions should be a major concern to all thinking Australians. It is a marvelous document, but it needs to be taught, thought about, deconstructed so that its meaning can be teased from its words, and the rules set out in the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 applied to every Act in the Commonwealth, no matter what legislative assembly it emanates from. The Rules in the Judiciary Act 1903 should not be allowed to be made nugatory and useless, by Rules made by lawyers, outside the four sides of the Constitution.

To understand it properly, a person really needs to be a regular attendee at a Christian Church, and understand the principles it is supposed to stand for. That is mutual respect and consideration for each other. It clearly has jury trial enshrined in its fabric by s 79. The word judges, uncapitalised means you and me. We are the judges, and we should be able to have our judgments tested in a jury trial with twelve of our fellows as judges, not a State appointed lawyer as happens now. The Deed of appointmet as judges is the Crimes Act 1914 and the courts should recognize that

Peter the Believer rightly draws attention to an error in my post of Saturday, 3 April 2010 at 8:02:34 AM, in which I used the words "... that referendum held in 1946, along with three others that failed on the same day, ... " when he said:

"My research indicates that every State
and 54.39% of the electors voted yes.
This means it was passed, but the two other
questions asked at that referendum failed."

There were, of course, only two other referenda than the Social Services referendum held on 28 September 1946, not three, as I mis-stated. I am, however, afraid that Peter the Believer's research has been too superficial if he thinks that the Social Services referendum passed in every State, as he claims. By way of explanation, he goes on to recast the provisions of Section 128 of the Constitution thus:

"S 128 Constitution says that a Majority of States
and a majority of electors must approve a referendum.
That means that four States and a majority of electors
must approve. This was achieved."



No it [the Constitution, that is] doesn't say that, and no, it wasn't [achieved, that is].



What the relevant words of Section 128 of the Constitution does say is:

"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."

The phrase 'all the electors voting' includes those who may have voted in a manner that at the counting of votes may be determined as being informal. The effect of this is that an informal vote at a referendum has the same effect as a formal 'NO' vote, because it is a vote cast by a voter that does not express APPROVAL of the proposed law.

Checking the arithmetic, you will find the 54.39% 'YES' vote nationally is only of the FORMAL votes cast. 228,859 informal votes cast by VOTERS have been ignored!

OUG,

I couldn't post till now, exceeded my limit of 8 posts per thread per day yesterday.

I'll message the guy and get him to come over and post himself.I think he's more upset at the the judiciary's lawlessness and lack of accountability than really wanting to kill anyone.He's had a rough ride with his ex as well and that hasn't made things any easier,stress like that can make you very ill.I hope he can find his peace with God sooner than later,I genuinely feel sorry for the man.

I'm not sure what you mean about upsetting me, and tThey seem to have pulled down that link.

As the basis for checking the arithmetic with respect to the three referenda held on 28 September 1946, I have before me photocopies of pages 64 and 65 of the Commonwealth of Australia Year Book for 1946-47, which pages contain the official results of those referenda and a record of the numbers of electors who voted, both by State, and in total for the Commonwealth. I have little doubt the same figures are shown on the AEC CD-ROM disk that Peter the Believer has used.

The 2,297,934 'YES' votes recorded for the Commonwealth on the Social Services referendum represented 54.39% of the total of 4,225,082 formal votes cast. Had the 228,859 informal votes cast by electors who voted been included in the total vote as the Constitution requires, then the correct result, nationally, would have been passage of the referendum with a majority of 70,963 'YES' votes, representing a 51.59% 'YES' vote by all electors voting. In all, 4,453,941 electors voted, and a majority of all electors voting, Commonwealth-wide, in the terms required under the Constitution, would have been constituted by no fewer than 2,226,971 'YES' votes.

It is easy to see how Peter the Believer's mistaken belief that the Social Services referendum passed in all States may have come about, because a superficial examination of the tabulation of results shows that in all States the 'YES' vote exceeded the formal 'NO' vote.

However, when the majorities as required in terms of the Constitution are similarly calculated on a State by State basis from the table of results shown, it becomes apparent that the Social Services referendum secured a majority of 'YES' votes, of all electors who voted in each State, in only NSW, Victoria, and Western Australia. The referendum thus failed to secure a majority of 'YES' votes in the terms required by the Constitution in a majority of States, and consequently failed the 'double majority' requirement of the Constitution for passage.

Rudd and Abbott, on the health issue, are in Constitutional quicksand!

All the best Karl; until a person experiences fighting against Acts and legislation, courts and judges, involving wrongdoings by the legal or political fraternity; most people do not become involved for many reasons [very sadly]. I came to understand that life is indeed short and people have their own problems daily to get through.

Been there done that ten years ago and it cost my family and self [children included] 8 wasted years of our lives that cannot ever be bought back. Our story at the time would [have been informed]made all of the current affairs programs and dollar wise could have assisted to pay costs for fraud and set ups involving a certain state. Preferred not to bother as the old saying goes: one can fight government but one will rarely win [over wrongdoings done to them personally or in business].