Perhaps it's time for the people to decide what stays and what goes.

After all, it is they who pay the bills!

Topics like, Gay marriage, smoking in public, wearing the burka in public, the war in Afghan, to name just a few.

Good idear or not?

Great idea.

It's about time some of these issues were concluded.

How do you decide which issues should be decided by referendum, and which not?

The ones that get a conscience vote in parliament

We need voter initiated referendums on any subject. I wrote to all local candidates before the election asking if they had to vote on a bill where they knew the electorate clearly wanted one result but they personally wanted the opposite, what would be their vote. I received only one answer from 5 candidates and he didn't answer directly but just advocated a referendum instead of a parliamentary vote.
However we as ordinary voters, cannot initiate any referendums. How do we get this changed ?

Bad idea.
Joe Public is an ignoramus.

“Perhaps it time for a Referendum” What do you mean? Do you want the same rules as in the Constitution? That is where one that has to win the majority of votes in each state and in the majority of states. That is one that the result can only be changed by another referendum. What makes you think this will resolve the issues. We are, I believe allowed to have different points of views and beliefs. That is at least as long as my view. Belief or action does not hurt someone else. I think it is about time we live and let live. What someone else believes in or does is really none of our business. Just because I believe in something does not make it right for someone else. There are many more important things in this world to worry about. Try poverty and injustice for starters.

Of course we are allowed to have different beliefs, unfortunately issues like legalising gay marriage and allowing burkasto be worn in certain circumstances are things that need to be addressed.

These types of issues won't be solved with a live and let live attitude. Action does need to be taken, whether it be yay or nay.

“Of course we are allowed to have different beliefs; unfortunately issues like legalising gay marriage and allowing burkas to be worn in certain circumstances are things that need to be addressed.”

I mean the things like you mentioned. How does a gay marriage hurt you? Before you start yelling, “the kids” are aware that many hundred already live in informal gay relationship. There is no evidence that they are coming to harm. I, for one am bemused that they want marriage. As for the burka, are you aware that very few women wear it? They are found in two or three localised areas. If there are problems with banks etc, that can be dealt with at that level. No way do they interfere with your life. Letting live and let live does not mean I agree with gay marriages and burkas. It means, if it does not harm others, it is not my business. The burka will eventually disappear the same way as the nun’s habit did. There are man laws, such as those against smoking. That is different. Smoking affects the health of others.

What a scary idea.

Just think of the number of laws that will need to be created each year, thanks to the conga-line of busybodies and do-gooders, who want to tell other people what to wear, decide what they can eat and drink, control how fast they drive, clamp down on what they don't want them to read...

And then undo the same laws the next year, once the riots have stopped.

Giving people that kind of power is like giving a loaded water pistol to a kid, telling him to be responsible and not squirt his sister.

Someone's going to get wet.

Or we could go the California route, where every proposition that spends "government" money is approved, while every one that raises taxes is knocked back.

People, en masse, are very easily led into mindless stupidity.

You put too much faith in referendums.
In one to give Aboriginals the vote,to make them citizens in their own country while it passed
Kempsy NSW voted strongly against it.
Your wish list however controversial as it is, would mostly get the result you want.
Maybe that is why we will not get it ever.

There are many issues that could be put to a public vote. Why do we ask our parliamentarians who represent us to vote on their conscience and not on the majority.

Some of our parliamentarians could be described as ignorant.

This is not the same as advocating referenda for every piece of legislation or the every minutiae of government. That would just be silly. Imagine the red tape and cost of bureacratic processes.

Dear rehctub,

I think the government has enough on its
plate at the moment to worry about
any Referendums just yet. However, things
like euthanasia, same-sex marriage, and a few
other things may just be brought up by the
Greens in their private member's bills.

We'll have to wait and see.

I agree with Pelly, if any of these topics
do come up in parliament - it should be
decided on a conscience vote.

Fantastic idea Rehctub:

How? Just like what everyone else said- whenever initiated by petition or whenever a dreaded 'conscience vote' rears its ugly head:

Also Pericles:
"Just think of the number of laws that will need to be created each year, thanks to the conga-line of busybodies and do-gooders, who want to tell other people what to wear, decide what they can eat and drink, control how fast they drive, clamp down on what they don't want them to read..."
I would actually argue that such types have an easier time now in getting their way than under a CIR-topped democracy, when they can simply lobby MPs, or, like Tony Abbot and Stephen Conroy, simply become ministers of the area they want to take control over;

I'm personally much more alarmed that one person can dictate their own beliefs onto us with the only way out being to vote in a potentially worse party- or their specific electorate (Which may be do-gooder central) personally decides to drop them.

As opposed to trust the broader populace who at least, I can guarantee:
1- sincerely wants to do the right thing
2-Would be the recipients of the policy and would at least care what the consequences are
3- would be less embarrassed to correct a bad decision they themselves made.

I for one would seriously doubt we would still be debating whether to implement Euthanasia legality, an Internet Filter and the sale of public assets to Macquarie Bank just to watch the service drop and the price rise, at the very least.

I vote we bring in an Anarchy party and stop pussy footing around like the other 3 stooges are. I mean their policies are ultimately heading that way so why prolong it? Just bring in the Anarchy party, adopt all the other 3 stooges policies and let the flames begin. When it's over, we can then have a referendum on whether we need Government at all or if a tribal council will suffice!

So am I right in assumming we live in a democratic society, but only when it suits?

The majority should not have the right to impose their beliefs on the minority in an democracy.

Flo

You ask how it hurts me? It doesn't, either way I couldn't really care. But a lot of people do and that is the problem, they want a result so I support the idea of putting it to them. The same with the burqa, I don't mind if women (however small the population) wear burqa's on their drivers licence photo. But some are in outrage over it, so again, let the people decide what is legalised. In a democratic society, I think it is fair to allow the majority to overrule the minority with their beliefs. That is how we elect the governing power.

Poverty and injustice will always be, as will the destructive nature of mankind. Until everyone is willing to give, nobody will be free from this.

But how will you pick and choose, King Hazza?

>>I for one would seriously doubt we would still be debating whether to implement Euthanasia legality, an Internet Filter and the sale of public assets to Macquarie Bank just to watch the service drop and the price rise, at the very least.<<

You might think these are the important issues.

Others might choose capital punishment for paedophiles, or a 95% tax rate for CEOs. The former would walk in, with a sufficiently emotional campaign, and we'd then have to introduce it for other offences. The latter would be carried by the sheer weight of numbers, and we'd have "the people" deciding how you and I should be taxed. Unlimited fuel for the politics of envy.

Is that really where you believe democracy should take us?

A preliminary question has been ignored, that being the relevance of any public referendum. Ever since the passing of the Reprints Act in 1992, politicians in Queensland can change any law without Parliamentary approval.

This is but one of many changes about which most Australians know nothing. It is why Anna Bligh says bluntly "You will have recycled water whether you like it or not." Given the changes that have occured in the last two decades (e.g. replacing Common Law with Civil and Statue Law), public referenda are meaningless because completely powerless.

Pericles, indeed the people would be more inclined than politicians to jump on such policies- however, after doing so, would face the consequences and be more likely than a politician (who put their reputation on the line to sell this concept) to change it back realizing they screwed up.

Also, it would be easier to bring common sense into a situation where there isn't any, and that is to simply circulate a more powerful argument to convince everyone of a stronger case. You will get people like Runner who will simply ignore it as the Devil's work, but generally it seems to work out (and again, much easier to convince a mad public of the virtues of your policy, as their motivation lies primarily in the better outcome of the referendum- a politician following a mad policy not as much so- surrounded by lobbyists pushing for it, and is easily more likely to personally benefit from a specific cause regardless if everyone else does).

As it is, we have a system where only a handful of people relevant to their local area call the shots on entire sections of policy, and a single politician on the fringe likely gets to call most of the shots that the majors will pander to in order to win them over to form a coalition parliamentary/senate majority.

Either which way we simply lack politicians who are actually more knowledgeable and morally-sound than the public for it to make much of a difference, with the only differences of a transfer to a more DD/CIR system that the forms of corruption of the process are more difficult.

Remember that even Malcolm Turnbull couldn't sell his Republic Model to referendum regardless of how many celebrities and patriotic, feel-good slogans and ads he tacked onto it- the lack of an elected president was the prime motivator instead.

Pericles and Flo do have valid concerns.

There would need to be protections for minorities, perhaps an inbuilt and constitutional understanding that other rights would not be easily dismissed when an issue may infringe on other long fought for personal liberties.

Democracy is not always easy and it is not perfect but it is better than the alternative. My first choice as a matter of environmental importance would be voting on a sustainable population having not bought into the Big Australia furphy.

This is just one example of the sort of issue that will not affect anyone adversely particularly if we continue to fulfill our obligations to asylum seekers. It is a good example of an issue where we should not have to rely on politicians to make those decisions when they might be at the behest of corporate and other global interests.

At least it offers an opportunity to let the people decide on a number of options presented - which would include flexibility given skill demands, family reunion and other population needs as they arise.

I can see many problems that might arise however humans are clever beings and there could be some easy criteria put (perhaps to parliamentary committee - not the Humphrey Appelby kind) where some of these issues could be discussed sensibly with input from various individuals, organisations and other groups.

There has to be a better way than what we have now where the populace are more and more separated policy decisions.

Referendums are expensive...and we can ill afford that at this time, or any time in the near future.

While I have strong views on topics such as euthanasia, the burqua, and the republic, I would not be happy with a referendum on these subjects.

Any questions on the referendum ballot papers would be structured towards the thoughts of the current Government of the day.
The results of any referendum would thus end up being exactly what the Government wants.

How would you answer questions like:

"Would you be happy with state-sanctioned killing of all dying people?" (Yes or No)

"Should we jail all women who wear the Burqa in public?"

"Would you like to see Australia secede from the Commonwealth and join with our Asian neighbours instead?"

Maybe not such silly questions, by some of our politicians

Flo >>The majority should not have the right to impose their beliefs on the minority in an democracy.

So please explain what a democarcy is then, if it is not 'majority rules'!

Suzonline

Would you be happy with state-sanctioned killing of all dying people?" (Yes or No)

My answer is 'No', but, people who find themselves as 'vetatables' should be given the right to 'pre-choose'.

"Should we jail all women who wear the Burqa in public?"

I for one think it should be banned in public. After all, this is Australia you know, and they are 'invited guests'.

A referendum on banning the burqua conflict with other human rights legislation - ie. governments not dictating what people should wear other than in security/identity situations.

Wording is important and which is why a committee could have carriage of ensuring real options are presented and not worded such as the Republic question where there was clear intent to sway the vote a certain way.

Referendums are expensive but they could be had at the same time as Federal elections - it has been done before so that any incoming government has a real mandate on some issues. Not everything can go to referendum - no one wants to vote whether we should use asphalt or bitument in road building or every small aspect of legislation.

It comes down to handing over power more and more to government and less to the people who are represented.

>>> I for one think it should be banned in public. After all, this is Australia you know, and they are 'invited guests'.
Posted by rehctub, Saturday, 25 September 2010 7:03:39 AM <<<

Even the Muslims born in Australia are guests?

Which also brings to mind, just how to you treat your guests, rehctub? I tend to treat my guests with respect.

>>> It comes down to handing over power more and more to government and less to the people who are represented.
Posted by pelican, Saturday, 25 September 2010 8:50:33 AM <<<

Exactly.

Sigh,

"Referendums are expensive...and we can ill afford that at this time, or any time in the near future."
-
No, they're not. Cut out advertising costs from the public purse and they're quite affordable. Not to mention that by having such input, it renders public opinion consultancies and research- along with a good many symbolic representatives and public servants obsolete- the money saved from otherwise paying their wages could easily carry a lot of slack.

"Any questions on the referendum ballot papers would be structured towards the thoughts of the current Government of the day."
-That's GOVERNMENT initiated referenda- not CITIZEN initiated referenda- citizen initiated referenda can propose whatever (and must be specific) to what the citizen initiating it wants- and that proposal needs to be unambiguous and desirable enough to get people to endorse it via petition before it actually becomes a referendum.

Anyway, for rights, simple:
Establish a bill of rights for citizens and residents of Australia, where the content boils down to what Australian voters would consider rights and what would be legally required to be a citizen or legal resident (knowing well that they are subject to these), and declare that a referendum cannot strip a person of these rights.
These rights and laws can of course be rewritten via referendum also if these are considered rights that are only abused or detract from other rights, and otherwise not needed.
The only inalienable doctrines being that nobody can make exception to a right based on ethnicity, and cannot remove any right to vote or initiate referenda.

To be honest it's quite alarming that so many Australians are so used to the setup we have (and our current place and amount of rights), that the prospect of having an actual democracy is frightening to the point that we don't even want to imagine it and the full implications (one being making a Bill of Rights actually a practical relevant document than a lawyer's and lobbyist's field day).

Referendums are expensive...and we can ill afford that at this time, or any time in the near future."
-
No, they're not. Cut out advertising costs from the public purse and they're quite affordable

Good point KH, after all, we should all have acess to fast broard band, so, why bother wasting money on advertising when one can simply recieve a 'once off' email from each party explaining why we should vote for them. In fact, we could even hold a referendum online.

Severin>>Even the Muslims born in Australia are guests?

No, they are Australians.

Now if they choose to practice the beliefs of their parents counties, by all means, go ahead. But in the confines of their home, or place of worship.

This is the problem with multiculturisim. They are all to often Australians, but only when it suits.

You either abied by our laws, or leave. After all, that's the way they would treat us in their country, isn't it!

Thankyou Rehctub
"we should all have acess to fast broard band, so, why bother wasting money on advertising when one can simply recieve a 'once off' email from each party explaining why we should vote for them. In fact, we could even hold a referendum online."
-
This option is even better, especially with the structure of 'advertising' being more transparent (and cheap). But even in analog form, as most materials are already purchased and most participants are volunteers, the costs are the remaining jobs for admin and security, buying and printing the paper, and some fuel and telephone credits.

"
Now if they choose to practice the beliefs of their parents counties, by all means, go ahead. But in the confines of their home, or place of worship."
-
Another interesting note that many overlook is that as an actual democracy, we, the public are free to decide what kind of religious practice privileges we would extend to ourselves and thus everyone else, instead of have some third-party (and often fundamentally religious) stranger arbitrarily decide for us what our 'values' and rights are.
If we decided to be a secular nation then we should be allowed to act as such (and avoid another WYD).

Also, something many people are missing is that we would be poised to immediately address problems that don't reach politicians priorities; cycling standards being a big one (whilst the city has walkways packed with people, footpaths in the burbs are barren and unused as cyclists and drivers try to dodge one another- but you would never see that rise in parliament). Then there are police powers, school zones, consumer/marketing conduct/ethics laws;

Personally, for all these I'm willing to have a debate on the death penalty (and I'm opposed to it for the record).
I generally mark a more mature, sophisticated society as one that takes issues directly, instead of begging some clearly indifferent higher power to please spare a crumb.

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I would like people first to learn what the constitution stands for and how it applies before deciding what stays and what goes because you might resolve most by being aware what is constitutionally permissible. A lot of rot that is going on can be resolved just by knowing the constitution. Such as all pays to former governor-Generals, former Prime Ministers and other former parliamentarians is unconstitutional and so their perks! So is the tax exclusion of former politicians, etc. Ok we already can safe a few billions here. Then the State land Taxes are unconstitutional as since 1910 it is a federal legislative power. Oops another about $35 billion a year on taxes gone. Well I could keep going but you may just get the message just learn what is constitutionally permissible and what is not and we all are a lot better off. See also my blog at http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

A very interesting point Gerrit, have bookmarked your page.
I believe if you have in fact identified some rorts as you say, we may have just paid for a more democratic system!

(plus keeping in mind, aware or not, I imagine one of the first polls would be to cut out all of these tax breaks and perks- the result is our caliber of politicians immediately improves because we would attract self-sufficient people (implying management skills) that aren't attracted to gravy will fill in the roles).

If you check out my latest post to premier Kristina Keneally at http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati (you can download articles free of charge ) then you may just discover that in my own way I certainly am taking on the politicians. What is missing in action is however are the very people who so much pursue their rights. Instead of each being defeated in the courts at huge cost to themselves they would better to support my writings and avoid all the cost to themselves as well as pursue what is appropriate.