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