04-22-2008, 08:37 AM
The people of Australia do not trust their governments.
They believe that, if a government proposes a referendum, there will be a "sting in the tail", a consequence that will be unforseen by and unwelcome to the people who vote in favour.
Hence the almost inevitable failure of referenda.
Thus, the "monarchy vs republic" vote would have given us the least favoured model of republic; the "four year term for Federal Parliament", which would have passed on its own, was tied to a proposal to destroy the Senate -- which the Labor Party was as an obstacle to their headlong "reform" efforts.
Instead, referenda should be organised by groups of citizens.
One such group might be the Labor Party. Another might be an industrial "empire".
BUT -- the organisers have to fund it!
First - a petition to the Electoral Commission, "signed" by 5% of the relevant electorate, with $50 (say) for each name on the list. If you REALLY want a law changed, is it worth $50 to you? if that's too much, do you REALLY want the change?
The Commission will advertise the proposal, and invite written support, again for each name a contribution of $10 (say).
25% of the electorate requesting the matter go to referendum (not neccessarily supporting the motion!) and the Commission must arrange a referendum. The contributions above would fund it.
So any wealthy individual COULD influence his employees, or people in need (of a drink and a packet of fags?) to send in their names. He would have to fund the referendum.
Since the final vote is by secret ballot, the organiser may well have "done his dough", so the risk of a rich man "buying" the result is tiny.
Voters may trust such a referendum better than a Government run one.
They believe that, if a government proposes a referendum, there will be a "sting in the tail", a consequence that will be unforseen by and unwelcome to the people who vote in favour.
Hence the almost inevitable failure of referenda.
Thus, the "monarchy vs republic" vote would have given us the least favoured model of republic; the "four year term for Federal Parliament", which would have passed on its own, was tied to a proposal to destroy the Senate -- which the Labor Party was as an obstacle to their headlong "reform" efforts.
Instead, referenda should be organised by groups of citizens.
One such group might be the Labor Party. Another might be an industrial "empire".
BUT -- the organisers have to fund it!
First - a petition to the Electoral Commission, "signed" by 5% of the relevant electorate, with $50 (say) for each name on the list. If you REALLY want a law changed, is it worth $50 to you? if that's too much, do you REALLY want the change?
The Commission will advertise the proposal, and invite written support, again for each name a contribution of $10 (say).
25% of the electorate requesting the matter go to referendum (not neccessarily supporting the motion!) and the Commission must arrange a referendum. The contributions above would fund it.
So any wealthy individual COULD influence his employees, or people in need (of a drink and a packet of fags?) to send in their names. He would have to fund the referendum.
Since the final vote is by secret ballot, the organiser may well have "done his dough", so the risk of a rich man "buying" the result is tiny.
Voters may trust such a referendum better than a Government run one.