Brian Ross wrote on Oct 7^th, 2016 at 7:03pm:


Haven't I spent the most of my posts writing about constitutional reform in Australia? The 4-year term; Senate reform; reform of the Federation, etc.?

Second, having a referendum to become a Republic doesn't actually change the status of the States. The States can still remain under the Queen, whilst the Commonwealth is a Republic. So, does this mean that we will have republican flag, but a Union Jack on each State flag?

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 7^th, 2016 at 9:34pm:


Any proposal I put forward would have to approved by the people. The best way to do it would be to have the people vote on a new Constitution, voting yes or no for the whole thing as opposed having each individual provision approved.

In the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of the Republic) Bill 1999, there was a provision in the Bill which stated that even after becoming a republic, the States would still 'retain' the right to have links to the Crown unless the laws were changed in accordance with their Constitution.

Quote:


Therein lies the recipe for no change.

I'll give you a real life example.  My Golf Club.  Our Constitution needed to be brought up to date, and two fellas, one a Lawyer and the other an Accountant took it upon themselves to draw up a new document which would be voted upon as one document at the next AGM.  The proposed document was circulated with the Notice of AGM.  I read it all very carefully.  There was lots of good stuff.  There was some atrocious stuff hidden in the detail.  So I shut up, said nothing to anyone and just turned up at the AGM.

The two proponents took the running, extolling the virtues of their baby and I let them talk themselves out.  They acknowledged it was not perfect (without stating the imperfections,) but, they assured us all, if there were problems, they could be addressed as time went by.

Just when everyone thought it was all over......I got on my feet with a "Hang on folks.  Did you know that this document has...*here insert disaster*.  Did you know that this document has...*here insert disaster*. Did you know that this document has...*here insert disaster*. Did you know that this document has...*here insert disaster*. Did you know that this document has...*here insert disaster*. etc etc etc."

After one short speech, after the flaws were pointing out,  (with the comment that......"It is not good enough to say we'll fix the problems later,") the AGM rejected the proposal.

As is usual, there were after AGM drinks at the Bar, and I assumed my usual position.  The Accountant came up to me red faced, and blurted, "Aussie, I am going to harpoon you!!!!!!!!!"  Furious that the effort he put in was so easily blown out of the water. 

Of course, as was inevitable, because of what happened, I could hardly refuse a request from the Management Committee to be part of a five person Sub-Committee to get the thing sorted.

I took months of weekly meetings.  And the essential element was this.

Every Saturday, we left an information sheet in a prominent place showing what existed on a particular issue, and how we proposed it be changed, or left as is.

By the time the next AGM came up, there was a Motion to adopt it entirely.  Passed without one little objection because we had dealt with all feedback on changes on a weekly basis.

That's what you have to do Ceasar.  Explain what you propose bit by bit, not "Here, cop this, take it or leave it," because if you do, it will be left.

Aussie wrote on Oct 7^th, 2016 at 10:13pm:


Mmm. Good analogy.

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 7^th, 2016 at 10:45pm:


I agree, they wouldn't.

I must agree with Brian on this one. The ability of a state to succeed from the commonwealth has been tested and found wanting.  The 1933 WA referendum showed that it is not possible in law for a state to succeed from the Commonwealth.

When the Australian constitution was written the American Civil War was fresh in the minds of all the men drafting the document, thus the phrase one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth was included to make it absolutely clear that secession was not an option and to remove any legal basis for attempting it.

Belgarion wrote on Oct 8^th, 2016 at 3:50pm:


This whole thing is speculation, that's all. I have read that some people think that the Preamble may be able to be altered by Britain on their own; although I agree that this is tenuous at best. One way to do it is pass a law retroactively.