Re: [luv-talk] local government (Andrew McGlashan)

---------- 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-inva...
-- 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.

On 21/02/2013 8:22 PM, Tim Hamilton wrote:
[1] http://www.religiousword.com/2012/04/the-1975-victorian-constitution-is-inva...
Did you watch that video? Aside from the strong religious background of the Australian Constitution and emphasis in basic Christian values being reflected therein, there are many points that need to be considered. One being that in my school life, there was ZERO education about the Australian Constitution and I would say that would be true of a great majority of the population today. Anybody under 45 years of age whom went to Victorian state schools are very unlikely to have any real knowledge of the Constitution via their state school eduction, myself included. My learning on these matters is post graduate. In relation to Aboriginal recognition in the constitution, well, they are recognized already as subjects of Australia, period. I know my kids were heavily brain washed in matters Aboriginal in primary school -- I have no reason to believe that hasn't taken place for all children educated in the last 15 or so years. This kind of brain washing together with a lack of education on matters that really matter puts us in great danger to have too many voters today having no idea as to the weight of risk associated with changes to the Constitution. I am not racist in any way. I don't believe ANY race, Aboriginal, white Australians or any other Australians for that matter are above any other racial denomination, we are all Australians, all subjects to the Australian Constitution. All Australians born in recent times have no need for positive or negative discrimination against any other Australian. Sure Aboriginals have been disadvantaged in the past, but I don't think that is the case any longer; I think that any measures that try to offer reverse discrimination are unjust and not necessary today. There may be areas where Aboriginals need extra support, but that is also true of every other group of Australians whom make up our population today.
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.
The big problem is that the vast majority of Australians of voting age today have very little idea as to what rights they have as detailed in the Australian Constitution and what effect agreeing on a change via a referendum will likely interfere with those rights [or possibly make the entire Constitution worthless].
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 history, I believe that even 20 years ago, a greater majority of voting age persons had a better understanding of the Australian Constitution (from their education) and were far better informed to be able to make reasonable assessment of the possible impact. Today, I am very sure that too many Australians have no clue on these matters.
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.
1988 was 25 years ago, times have changed significantly -- I do believe that it will be far easier to get through referendums in the current environment that we are facing; ie with many voting Australians being totally unaware of the consequences of voting YES to any amendment and the brain washing that gives people the "educated view" that they must specifically single out Aboriginals for recognition in the Constitution as well as legitimizing the local councils; it will be easy to do a snow job given the lack of knowledge that most people have in this area today....
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.
At the end of the day, if one Government can get through change that significantly helps their type (politicians), then they will stick together on such matters. You don't see many politicians refusing their extremely generous retirement benefits (superannuation in particular).
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.
There can always be exceptions, but again, that was in 1977 which is totally different situation to 2013 in terms of voter knowledge on constitutional matters.
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.
I absolutely disagree. An Aboriginal is an Australian just like you, me and every other Australian -- we are all subjects to the Australian Constitution already. No change is required to "fix" this or anything else at this time.
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.
That may very well be quite true of 1967 and before that, but now we are seeing reverse discrimination, that is just as bad for the rest of the Australian people, if not also bad for Aboriginals themselves.
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.
As I understand it, the preamble changes that are in the works, will significantly effect the validity of the document for it's originally intended purpose, mainly to protect people from government actions that are unjust or unreasonably limit our freedoms unnecessarily. It will put a nice fluff on paper [to add a special recognition of one type of Australian group], but at the same time, it will take away the rights as defined in the very well written original constitution. I haven't seen any actual proposed preamble, but I am 100% certain that no change is necessary and the risk of any change is far too great to accept. If Aboriginals were not subjects to the Australian Constitution, then there might be a case, but they are subjects so it is a mute point to suggest a change is necessary -- it clearly is not necessary to change anything today (in this regard [Aboriginal recognition] or any other consideration). Again if local councils are doing the wrong thing in any way, then they need to be held accountable (we have enough laws already to deal with fraud, corruption and other matters that local councils may be party to) -- giving local councils any kind of governmental powers is not the answer. Kind Regards AndrewM

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
I am not racist in any way.
http://www.notracistbut.com/ People who aren't racist don't need to include such disclaimers. In fact there's even a web site devoted to such disclaimers. http://www.understandingprejudice.org/apa/english/ The above URL summarises a lot of psychological research into prejudice. No matter how hard you try it's almost impossible to avoid some degree of prejudice. As an aside I don't think that you are trying at all.
All Australians born in recent times have no need for positive or negative discrimination against any other Australian.
Are you seriously claiming that white people are being discriminated against? Did you realise that pretty much everything is run by white men?
Sure Aboriginals have been disadvantaged in the past, but I don't think that is the case any longer;
People from the group in power always claim that there is no disadvantage. http://www.racialicious.com/ Racialicious has many interesting articles about racism, it seems fairly US centric though. I did a quick Google search for a similar site that covers the Aboriginal experience but didn't find anything. I did find lots of random articles about racism against Aboriginies. The evidence of disadvantage is a quick Google search away.
I think that any measures that try to offer reverse discrimination are unjust and not necessary today.
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/tag/raceethnicity/ You should learn about Sociology. You can't just wave a magic wand and change attitudes throughout society. The "stolen generations" includes people who are still alive today, clear and direct racism in Australian law is something that happened within the lifetimes of about half the population of Australia. Kevin Rudd's apology for that only happened 5 years ago. When Aboriginies have the same life expectancy, the same average quality of health, and the same average income as white people then measures to help them won't be necessary. But at this time helping Aboriginal people recover from a history of mistreatment is necessary if we are to have a decent society. Also it's not "reverse discrimination".
There may be areas where Aboriginals need extra support, but that is also true of every other group of Australians whom make up our population today.
I really don't think that straight white men need extra support. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/

On 22/02/2013 8:45 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2013, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote: People who aren't racist don't need to include such disclaimers. In fact there's even a web site devoted to such disclaimers.
I am not against Aboriginal people, although it _may_ seem that way because I don't support a change of the constitution, that's all -- that's why I qualified. To me, everybody is a person, no matter where they come from or what their skin colour. Attitudes vary in all areas of society, there are good and bad people everywhere, race doesn't determine this.
Are you seriously claiming that white people are being discriminated against? Did you realise that pretty much everything is run by white men?
I disagree, Aboriginals make up 2% of the population. There are plenty looking out to support those 2%, and many government benefits are inflated for those that qualify as Aboriginal or Torre Strait Islanders.
You should learn about Sociology. You can't just wave a magic wand and change attitudes throughout society. The "stolen generations" includes people who are still alive today, clear and direct racism in Australian law is something that happened within the lifetimes of about half the population of Australia. Kevin Rudd's apology for that only happened 5 years ago.
I don't disagree that bad things happened. The apology itself could have and may have opened another can of worms. Aborigines often come across as being entitled -- my wife was asked to jump in a car and take one of them somewhere just because he wanted to go and "this is our land", it was quite a strange demand (not at all a friendly request). Sometimes you give an inch, then a mile is taken.
When Aboriginies have the same life expectancy, the same average quality of health, and the same average income as white people then measures to help them won't be necessary. But at this time helping Aboriginal people recover from a history of mistreatment is necessary if we are to have a decent society. Also it's not "reverse discrimination".
They could easily have the same life expectancy, they have the means and support of the people and the government -- sometimes it is lifestyle that limits their ability to have a healthier and longer life expectancy and those other goals you aim for them. Alcohol has been a major contributing factor for violence and other trouble in some Aboriginal communities. Aboriginals as subjects of the Australian Constitution have the same rights as other fellow Aussies, the same rights and the same opportunities.
There may be areas where Aboriginals need extra support, but that is also true of every other group of Australians whom make up our population today.
I really don't think that straight white men need extra support.
Everybody needs support at times, some more than others and some less, but skin color makes little difference -- attitude is a more helpful determining factor. A.

Andrew McGlashan wrote:
Sure Aboriginals have been disadvantaged in the past, but I don't think that is the case any longer [...]
You only need to listen to 3KND for an hour to see that the government, at least, thinks there is a serious gap between aboriginal and white australian wellbeing. About half the ads are government advice: - eat fruit and vegetables; - go to a doctor if you're sick; - don't drink and or take drugs while pregnant; and - if no one else will employ you, try the civil service. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians#Contemporary_issues further shows the following points (all are post-2000 results): - the life expectancy gap between Aboriginals and the rest of the Australian population [is] 25 years. - 39% of indigenous students stayed on to year 12 at high school, compared with 75% for the Australian population as a whole. - Indigenous Australians were twice as likely to report their health as fair/poor and 1.5 times more likely to have a disability or long-term health condition. - up to tenfold higher incidence rate in specific health complications. - the imprisonment rate for Indigenous people was 14 times higher than that of non-Indigenous people. - Indigenous Australians were twice as likely as non-Indigenous Australians of the same age group to be a victim of violent aggression. - 24% of Indigenous Australians reported as being a victim of violence. - Indigenous Australians were 11 times more likely to be in prison. - Indigenous adults [are] more than twice as likely as non-Indigenous adults to be current daily smokers of tobacco. This is clearly FUCKED UP. I doubt a non-binding preamble change will help. I *really* doubt denying that there is a problem will help.

On 22/02/2013 10:37 AM, Trent W. Buck wrote:
This is clearly FUCKED UP. I doubt a non-binding preamble change will help. I *really* doubt denying that there is a problem will help.
There definitely are problems, but how best to solve them is not easy, changing the constitution won't help in this at all. There is support for Aborigines, but they can choose to improve their own situation greatly if they want to, by themselves -- alcohol and violence are big factors, so is diet. As with all groups in societies, some will want help, others will not. There are plenty of disabled people whom cannot stand being treated any differently to those without disabilities. In any case, the whole point of the discussion was to help ensure that people have awareness of the dangers of giving local councils even more authority and also anything else that could result from a constitutional change (including the proposals to change the preamble for Aboriginal recognition). Again I state that no change to the Constitution is warranted and nor is it worth the risk to accept a change for either of these two cases for which a referendum is expected to be held soon. If local councils must continue to exist, then they must fairly charge rates and not impose illegal fines. Just heard during the week about "council fines" being able to be sent to charities via a court order, that was instead of going to councils -- well that is no more [1]. Many charities will now miss out and councils will just swallow up extra money from the community. Councils operate as corporations with executive salaries, exercising powers beyond their jurisdiction. There is no shortage of money going through your local council. [1] http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/donations-for-charity-ruled-out-20130219-2... Cheers A.
participants (4)
-
Andrew McGlashan
-
Russell Coker
-
Tim Hamilton
-
Trent W. Buck