---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au>
To: luv-talk@lists.luv.asn.au
Cc: 
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:48:32 +1100
Subject: Re: [luv-talk] Fwd: local government

It won't, but it will cause significant damage to our rights under the
Australian Constitution instead.

Unfortunately, ANY change to the constitution will put the whole
constitution at risk.  This is not just an issue over local governance,
it is much more encompassing ... the recognition of Aboriginals for
instance, is another area of reform that is not necessary; Aboriginals,
like any other Australian person are already protected by out
constitution (as are "illegal" immigrants that enter our shores by
whatever means).

I cannot stress enough, that ANY change to the constitution will be a
serious risk to our rights and has the potential to make our entire
constitution absolutely worthless.  It is simply not worth the risk, no
matter what is proposed -- and that is irregardless of whether or not
you agree with the any assertions that have been made above or at the
following link.


[1]
http://www.religiousword.com/2012/04/the-1975-victorian-constitution-is-invalid/

--
Kind Regards
AndrewM



Ignoring your arguments about local government, concerns which in some respects I share, I must take you up on your claim that *any* change to the Australian constitution puts the entire document at risk.

This claim patiently absurd and shows little understanding of the Australian political system.

Since Federation, Australia has seen forty-four proposals to change the constitution go to referendum. To change the constitution, a referendum needs to pass the relatively high hurdle of a 'double majority' (majority of voters in the majority of States). Due to this, of the forty-four referenda held, only eight have been carried. None have resulted in the constitution, or our political system, being 'endangered' in any way.

In addition, the double majority requirement means that to be carried, a constitutional amendment really needs bipartisan political, as well as popular support. A contentious change to the constitution is unlikely to reach this hurdle. And, in fact, none have ever done so. I would imagine if, as you claim, a proposed change to the constitution is dangerous in any way, it would fall at this hurdle. As was a similar proposal to recognise local government in July 1988.

You also ignore the role of convention within our political system. It was the breakdown of convention that was largely the cause of the only 'constitutional crisis' this nation has faced. This crisis had little to do with the document itself and much to do with the actions of certain people. It had certainly nothing to do with the kinds of changes you hold up as examples. If we are to face another crisis, it is more likely to be the result of a breakdown in convention than changes to our constitutional document.

The most recent constitutional change illustrates this point nicely. Carried in 1977, it changed the rules surrounding the filling of casual Senate vacancies (along with two other changes, both also carried), an issue that, in part, led to the crisis of 1975. Contrary to your claim that any changes to the constitution endanger the document, this change actually strengthened our system of constitutional government by not allowing a shift in numbers on the floor of the Senate without an associated election.

Finally, I suggest the exact opposite of your assertion is true. For our constitution to remain relevant, stable and enduring we must have the ability and courageousness to change it. If not often, when it is necessary. The second example you cite, the constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians, is exactly a case in point.

Indigenous Australians have long been marginalised in this country and they have *not*--in the strongest possible terms--*not* been adequately protected by our constitution; before or after the changes to the document made in 1967. 

The current proposal, however, is different. It calls for Indigenous recognition via a non-legally binding preamble to the constitution. That is, even though it would require a referendum, the reality is any change would be a largely a symbolic measure. Nonetheless, there remains a strong case for constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians within the legally binding body of the document. I do not believe that such a proposal would in any way endanger the constitution, our political system or our way of life. Again, I assert the opposite, any debate on the subject can only strengthen our polity and our nation.

Excuse the length of this post, it is a subject I feel strongly about.


Regards,
Tim Hamilton


PS. In this instance, ignore my quip for that is all it is. A quip.
--
Vote NO in referenda.