This does NOT make me mad

This makes me sad, not mad

 

Most of us know someone who says we should help Australians before we worry about refugees. Quite a few people I love feel this way. I don’t love them because they are relatives – they aren’t – I love them because they are good, decent people who would give the shirt off their backs to anyone they felt deserved or needed it.

Truth is, most of us know someone who has been let down or even shat on by a succession of Australian governments: someone aged, someone young, someone in need of surgery, someone struggling to deal with several young handicapped children, someone in need of mental health care, or someone in their 70s looking after young grandchildren.

Truth is, most of us also know of somebody who is rorting the system. [Bronwyn Bishop would be a name that springs readily to mind.]

 

We hear, daily, blatant bullshit from politicians. That we already take a very high number of refugees. That baby boomers with no super have an unwarranted sense of entitlement. The number of jobs increased this quarter. The other party are immoral and we are perfect. ad nauseum

Bare-faced lies.

Whom should we trust? The Murdoch media? Andrew Bolt? Reality TV Show contestants?

Our own eyes, when we see angry refugees rioting and destroying our property? Yes, it’s biased and selective and only on the news because it’s exceptional, but accept it folks, that’s exactly what people are seeing.

And it’s about all people are seeing or hearing because no one with anything decent to say can say it in context in a 30 second sound-bite.

The only people who benefit from what governments do are the already-haves. Not the people who want to put Australians first, nor the people who want to help refugees, nor refugees themselves.

The only people who benefit from what governments do are the political bosses, who take from Australians, and deflect attention from their neglect by blaming those who are even more helpless than the Australians they are robbing.

They benefit by dividing us and turning us against each other and against other ‘outsiders’.

IT MAKES ME SAD TO READ SO MANY ABUSIVE AND PERSONAL AND TROLL LIKE COMMENTS AND ACCUSATIONS OF RACISM, UNDER POSTS AND ARTICLES ABOUT SYRIA.

CAN WE JUST STOP WITH THE VENOM AND GET ON WITH ACTING LIKE THE SANE, REASONABLE ADULTS WE WISH POLITICIANS WERE?

 

We need to stop fighting with each other, and start fighting together.

 

 

 

This is good work, but what next? How can we make things happen without having to say 'you don't speak for me' all the time. Isn't this supposed to be a democracy?

We need a new, democratic constitution. One that gives every voter a direct say in who will lead this country. One that balances power between the Parliament, a President, the courts AND the people.

We need to make each election victory a written contract, where every player is clear about what their job is, and where the lines are that can’t be crossed; A written contract built around the rights of citizens, and the obligations of government – not the reverse.

The stories are already trickling through. People not from Syria pretending to be from Syria so they can get to Germany. Easy to see where this is heading.

When all the tricks in the book are set out by our Government and in the media – as they invariably will be, however few people are trying them – they will all be things that could have been avoided by a better constitution. And Australians will be arguing against and blaming each other again, instead of putting the blame where it rightly belongs – with current and recent governments.

Here’s what the discussion draft suggests would be fairer all round:

1.   Make decisions about bombing the crap out of other people’s homes more democratic, and subject to some restraint [with respect to warfare, and an Emergency Council, the discussion draft says

37 – Australian Military Presence on Foreign Soil

a)    Where 36 Sub Section a) does not apply, no commitment to Military Action or Australian Military Presence on foreign soil shall be made unless;

1.    The proposed Military Action or Presence is in support of a resolution of the UN Security Council; or

2.    The proposed Military Action or Presence is in support of a UN sponsored peace-keeping force; or

3.    The proposed Military Action or Presence is approved by a majority of member nations of the UN; or

4.    An ally of Australia has requested Australian assistance with Military Action or Presence in a country other than Australia;

b)    A majority of all members of the full Emergency Council must vote to call upon the Parliament to approve such Military Action or Presence; and

c)    Approval must be granted by a Joint Sitting of both Houses of Parliament.

2.   Minimum standards of treatment for ALL Australians - s101 of the discussion draft covers rights of Australian citizens

3.   Support business to create jobs for Australians, not as an end in itself - sections 83-100 of the discussion draft set out the government contract with the people

4.   Government subcontracting of services [such as running detention centres] will no longer be a barrier to duty of care. Transparency and audits should meet the same standard as if the services were provided by public servants directly employed by the government - the discussion draft at s95 d)

    As no contract can extinguish a duty of care, private enterprises contracted to provide goods or services shall be subject to the same standards, audits and supervision as if the provider were a department of the Public Service

 

Nothing that's not already true in principle, but unfortunately not in writing.

 

Displaced Persons, Asylum Seekers and Refugees

99 – Displaced Persons, Asylum Seekers and Refugees

Australian Governments shall

a)    Acting for the benefit of Australians no less than non-Australians and without renouncing national sovereignty, demonstrate that Australia is

1.    a good global citizen,

2.    intolerant of human trafficking, debt bondage, sweated child labour or genocide

b)    With respect to numbers of Internally Displaced Persons or Asylum Seekers worldwide; provide assistance to the UN, its Agent or Successor with

1.    the management of IDP camps and refugee camps

2.    promoting reasonable standards of refugee protection and assistance close to areas of conflict

c)    in determining humanitarian intake quotas have regard for

1.    existing infrastructure, social cohesion and Australia’s capacity to absorb immigrants

2.    numbers living illegally in unprotected countries with no means to apply for asylum

3.    numbers living in refugee camps around the globe who have been stateless for an extended length of time

4.    the character of individuals who might fill that quota

 

 

So here’s what we should be getting from any decent government

·         Stop creating refugees in the first place

·         Give people a place near their home where they can apply for asylum

·         Give them somewhere safe and productive to stay near their home,

·         Help more with processing and providing

·         Take a reasonable share of the world’s refugees as migrants

·         Be sure and include some who have been stateless for decades

AND, quite reasonably

·         We are entitled to make sure they will be people who want to fit in

This could not possibly cost us more than sending refugees to Cambodia, or bombing the shit out of innocent people. 

 

Jobs and Refugees and the Politics of Resentment

Naomi Klein warned us in 1999. Sociologists and economists were talking about it in the 1980s.

Corporatism breeds unemployment – and it destroys democracy.

Not capitalism, per se, but corporatism.

When people feel uncertain about employment, they can get grumpy and feel nervous.

 

The minimum wage in the U.S. is so low that companies like Walmart prosper –by telling their workers to get government assistance to top up their wages!

U.S. Senator Warren said “no one should work full time and live in poverty” – and this is taken as a radical way of thinking!

 

Personally I don’t think any Australian should be unemployed when we don't even have tram conductors, or staff in Public Service Offices. Our jobs should not have been lost in the first place. And there should be plenty of jobs people could do.

If you’ve stuck with me this far, you are probably not in the mood for a rant about the economy, but here’s the thing;

 

JOBS.

 

People are not afraid of refugees because refugees might be different – people are afraid because refugees will be competing for jobs or, worse yet, competing for dwindling government assistance, and competing for basic things like food, shelter, and health care.

It shouldn’t, and needn’t, be like this.


You can read the text of the draft here or PM me through the facebook page and I will happily email you a more readable PDF. The draft DOES need everybody's input, it is just designed to start discussions. 

Please join the discussion if you agree Australia needs a new and more democratic constitution. If you don't want to use blogger, you can discuss the idea via facebook.

 

Time to Open the War Cabinet

Assuming you agree a new Constitution could be a good thing, it’s worth asking what rules you would like to see relating to military action.

Under our current system, there is nothing terribly democratic about the decision making process. Cabinet can pretty much do what it likes.

 

Anything from any government that mentions military action has to be a cause for concern.

The discussion draft of a new Australian Constitution proposes we establish an emergency council, and allow for 3 types of situation:

·         Emergencies like bushfires

·         Definite attacks on Australia

·         Australia taking military action overseas

It tries to strike a balance between the reality that sometimes we need to make quick decisions, and the desirability of robust debate before making a military commitment.

The directly relevant sections of the draft are Sections 34 to 37 [Emergency Council]. S99 has something to say about Displaced Persons, Asylum Seekers and Refugees.

Your input is needed! A new constitution will only be adopted if it promises a better democracy. The draft does not say we must not go to war, nor does it say we should – the focus is on how the decision should be made.

 

It doesn’t matter whether you agree or disagree with me about how best to combat terrorism, or when military action is or is not justified.

Do you think Australia’s navy should be used to turn back asylum seeker boats? Whether you agree or disagree, how well do you think the draft provides for a democratic decision-making process?

You can read the text of the draft here or PM me through the facebook page and I will happily email you a more readable PDF. The draft DOES need everybody's input, it is just designed to start discussions. 

Please join the discussion if you agree Australia needs a new and more democratic constitution. If you don't want to use blogger, you can discuss the idea via facebook.

 

Constitution's Treatment of Indigenous Australians Criminal

The Tony Abbott Memes just keep on coming. When another appeared yesterday I had a chuckle but felt, yet again, that while the laughs are cathartic they are also dangerous. Are we becoming too comfortable with the notion of powerlessness; with accepting there is nothing we can do but laugh?

  
The current government is not the first to let Indigenous Australians down and, sadly, probably won’t be the last.
We can blame politicians and change how we vote every 3 years, but many of Australia’s problems are systemic -so far simply voting differently is not proving a great strategy.

There is stuff Federal Governments could do, but there is a lot of stuff they can’t. Quite simply, Our Current Constitution gives States and Territories the power to make their own Criminal Laws.

ABS Imprisonment figures 2007 Population figures 2006

 

WA’s “three strikes law” is a Western Australian law. Those of us who don’t think a kid belongs in jail for stealing biscuits but don’t live in WA can’t do much except protest.

[If I’m right, WA Judges are also currently forbidden to adjust sentences if an Aboriginal person has already been subjected to a traditional punishment.]

The NT law that allows for paperless arrests is a Northern Territory law. Does the Northern Territory Government care what this Victorian thinks? Probably not much.

 

Charlie Pickering mentioned the CNS above – a NSW initiative that has helped prevent deaths in custody. Victoria has dedicated Koori [Magistrate] Courts that have had a positive impact on youth recidivism rates.

Does not look like one country with one set of decent values from where I sit.

 

It could be argued that the Federal Government could find ways to exert pressure on the States to lift their game. I would argue instead that this would take much longer than Indigenous people can afford.

Arguing that Federal governments should intervene is a federalist solution. It amounts in the long run to what I keep proposing anyway – take State Governments out of the equation altogether. Why don’t we just get on with it now, and do it effectively?

 

The discussion draft of a new, more democratic constitution has a bit to say, both directly and indirectly, about Indigenous Australia. [There’s probably more that it should say, but discussion is always invited].

With respect to Indigenous Justice, some key points in the draft are:

S90  - Procedural Fairness

b)    In Indigenous communities where there is limited knowledge of Standard English or understanding of concepts of Australian law;

1.    provide continuity of legal representation;

2.    provide, if necessary to ensure equitable sentencing of Indigenous Australians, culturally appropriate sentences consistent with the aims described under Section 103 a) of this New Australian Constitution Act;

3.    regularly review the legal needs of various communities and the implications of those needs for equitable judgments

 

S101 – Rights of Australian Citizens

The usual e.g. Freedom from disproportionate punishment, presumption of innocence, right to representation, etc

 

S103 [Probably the wrong spot to put this, but at least it’s there]

a)    the right to liberty and freedom may be vitiated where a citizen has been convicted of a crime and a sentence restricting liberty will assist in one or more of

1.    the protection and safety of the public

2.    proportionate punishment of the guilty party

3.    providing a deterrent to the commission of crime

4.    the rehabilitation of the guilty party

In other words, there are reasons for locking people up – being black or making the streets look tidy for tourists are not among them.

Until we have one clear, commonly accepted set of standards, systemic racism will remain a key feature of our "justice" system.

 

Common Decent Law

The overall thrust of the draft is to take the law back from governments who know they are omnipotent, and provide a clear contract that will make them accountable. We need a shift from over-regulation to common sense and a common law notion of what is reasonable.

And should some directly elected President think it’s okay to approve a law putting some kid in jail for stealing biscuits, the people would have the power to demand real change.  

 

You can read the text of the draft here or PM me through the facebook page and I will happily email you a more readable PDF. The draft DOES need everybody's input, it is just designed to start discussions. 

Please join the discussion if you agree Australia needs a new and more democratic constitution. If you don't want to use blogger, you can discuss the idea via facebook.

 

*More Info

WA three strikes law

Koori courts

Aboriginal English in the Courts ISBN 0-7242-8071-5

 

 

 

Which Way Do We Turn?

 

The discussion draft for a new, more democratic Australian constitution is built on three main ideas

1.   The parliament will still be elected by voters, but with clearly defined obligations to the people, and limits on power [a contract enforceable by law]

2.   A President will be directly elected by ALL Australians, to be the public face of Australia, and will have some power to veto bad laws or to influence the Parliament

3.   The people will have the right to Petition the President, and to have that petition taken seriously.

The people’s right to Petition the President in this draft is built on an already popular idea - that government should give voters a bigger say on important issues – a right to demand referenda, opinion polls or plebiscites.*

 

 

A major defect of a two or three party system is that we are more or less forced to choose a bundle of policies, and take the good policies with the bad.

If, for example, I want to vote against current asylum seeker problems but in favour of equal marriage laws, it looks like neither of the two major parties is going to cut the mustard at the next election.

The discussion draft tries to strike a balance between giving people a say on what specific or individual policies should be, and leaving the job of implementing those policies to the government.

How Petitions Currently Work

Currently, petitions have some sway but no legal power, and signatures are not necessarily collected in any strictly controlled way.

Voting and Referenda [in Australia, a Plebiscite unless we are talking about a change to the actual constitution] can be expensive. The Abbott Government has recently used the expense of a public vote as a rather poor excuse to ignore the issue of same-sex marriages.

How Petitions Could Work

S50 a) of the draft makes voter registration more secure, makes it easier to check whether someone has the right to sign a petition, and prevents people from signing more than once. Every signature would then have legal weight.

102 – The Right to Petition the President

a)   Where the People present a Petition to the President for change and that Petition is in the proper form, The Australian Electoral Commission shall measure the level of support for the petition.

b)   Where it is shown that support exceeds 35 percent of the number of registered voters, the President shall

1.   Address the people with his thoughts on that matter and

                                                 i.    Encourage policy changes in the Parliament or

                                                ii.    direct the Australian Electoral Commission to prepare papers putting related questions to the people at the next Australia-wide election.

How Much Petition Power People Would Have

The legislative process in the draft has checks and balances built in: Because The President is not bound by Ministry or Caucus politics, he has a chance to return legislation for review. This gives “the people” time to actually protest.

The President is required to respond to big petitions.

If the President agrees with Parliament against the wishes of the people, the decision is delayed until the next election. End of story.
Want to stop fracking through the Artesian Basin? Done with a binding petition.
Want to stop the President signing the TPP? Done with a binding petition.

Under the draft Constitution, we would have one big election day, every two years, on a fixed date. This takes care of all the polling for Presidents, Parliaments, and Local Governments.

It would cost little extra in money terms and require no extra “voting days” – to canvas public opinion more frequently on a bigger range of issues, as well as deal with Petition matters. It’s almost stupid to not make the most of election days.

In some direct democracy systems [see * below], people go to the polls as often as every 3 months. I think this would be overkill. We are more likely to be intent on stopping something bad than voting for some little detail. This draft just focuses on more power over policy - not detail.

 

What do you think would be an appropriate number of signatures for a petition to have some kind of binding power – at the very least, to poll people’s opinions while we are at the polls?

 

 

You can read the text of the draft here or PM me through the facebook page and I will happily email you a more readable PDF. The draft DOES need everybody's input, it is just designed to start discussions. 

 

Please join the discussion if you agree Australia needs a new and more democratic constitution. If you don't want to use blogger, you can discuss the idea via facebook.

 

* To read more about people-power systems: 

Citizen Initiated Referenda

eDemocracy in Australia

Direct Democracy

 

 

 

The High Cost of Truth

 

IFF we had a brand new Constitution and IF it contained a Bill of Rights, what would be the best way to deal with freedom of speech?

Political correctness

The Discussion Draft of a New Australian Constitution Includes a List of Rights and a List of Obligations that go with them. The lists try to find a balance between the need for open-ness in debate, and the need to live in a world that is not overly abusive. Political correctness has a role to play in questioning sometimes defective assumptions or stereotypes, but when does political correctness become censorship?

 

 

 

Defamation

A big issue is the issue of defamation: Most of us rely heavily on others for important information - the truth. The high cost of being sued can be a deterrent that also acts as censorship.

In 2005 each state passed similar defamation acts, in order to create what passes for Uniform Australian law.

In Australia, as in the UK, to claim truth as a defence, the person being sued for defamation must prove that every part of the material published is substantially true.

In the USA the reverse applies – the burden of proof is on the person suing someone else for defamation.

Should the burden of proof remain with the defendant in Australia?

 

 

Going to court is an expensive business for anyone – when publishers bear the burden of proof, they routinely decide not to publish it at all, or publish first then quickly settle out of court later – with an apology that suggests the truth was a lie.

 

In addition, American law requires a plaintiff who is a public figure… to prove that the defendant published the offending statement with knowledge that it was false or in reckless disregard of its truth…

In Britain, an editor or writer who makes every effort to check a statement for accuracy but makes an innocent mistake can be successfully sued for libel.*

 

Anthony Lewis, Introduction History on Trial by Deborah Lipstadt

 

In 1996, David Irving sued both Penguin UK and author Deborah Lipstadt for libel on the grounds he had been falsely labelled a Holocaust denier, falsely accused of falsifying evidence or deliberately misinterpreting it, by which false accusations his reputation as an historian was defamed.

Both Penguin and Lipstadt spent 5 years preparing a defence and fighting the suits. As well as legal representation, they had to fork out for experts to spend 2 years or more examining the evidence Irving was accused of falsifying or manipulating. Lipstadt’s initial quote for simply preparing to fight – which included a great deal of pro bono work – was 1.6 million British Pounds. On top of that she lost a great deal of income over the 5 years, and had to spend money travelling to the UK and living there for months.

 

 

While we might think the world has gone a little mad with rules because everyone is frightened of being sued, it’s not quite the problem here that it is in the USA where people are sometimes awarded millions for being served a dodgy burger.

In the USA the amount of damages is decided by jury, whereas under the UK system it is decided by the Judge.

Even so, the costs Lipstadt might have had to pay had she lost were phenomenal; the royalties from her book Denying the Holocaust had already been donated to charity.

Whistleblowers

The draft discussion also offers protection to bona fide whistleblowers.

At the one extreme we have, as an example, Wikileaks, where anything and everything might be revealed.

At another extreme, we have a situation where medical professionals are at risk of being jailed for talking about what happens in detention centres.

 

 

A reasonable middle ground might be a situation where people are entitled to reveal the truth if it is going to save lives and the only thing at risk is the reputation of a questionable government.

101 and 103 are the main clauses of the draft relevant to this discussion, though 85, 86 and others are also indirectly relevant. You can read the text of the draft here or PM me through the facebook page and I will happily email you a more readable PDF. The draft DOES need everybody's input, it is just designed to start discussions. 

 

Please join the discussion if you agree Australia needs a new and more democratic constitution. If you don't want to use blogger, you can discuss the idea via facebook.

 

 

 

 

Who Would Want Their Home in Such a Sorry State?

 

Proposals to mine coal seam gas under the Great Artesian Basin illustrate an inescapable truth: What happens in or is decided in one state invariably affects other states.

 

 

Australia belongs to Australians. The Great Artesian Basin belongs to Australians – not to New South Welshmen alone, or Queenslanders alone, or South Australians or Northern Territorians alone – but to ALL Australians.

One passport. One currency. One Nationality.

With modern transport and digital communication technologies, there is no compelling reason for a population of around 25 million to support 7 State and Territory Governments. There are, however, many compelling reasons to abolish State Governments.

Our original Constitution was designed to guard State Rights. It was expected the Federal Government would not collect a great deal in taxes to fulfil its limited obligations: It was expected States would probably have to subsidise the Federal Government, not beg the Federal government for handouts.

So how did we come to have a system where The Federal Government pulls most of the purse strings, and where we not only have a Minister for Education, a Minister for Employment or a Minister for Health in each State and Territory, but we have an 8^th Minister for many portfolios at a Federal Level?

A simplistic answer is that during World War II States handed income tax collection powers to the Federal Government.*

This change, undreamt of by those who put the first Constitution together, has been an enormous disaster. The Federal Government, through Section 96, now has disproportionate control over how much States get and what the States might do with their share.

One passport. One currency. One Country.

8 Ministers for Education. 8 Ministers for Health. 8 Ministers for Employment.

8 Parliaments. 8 times a lot of expense is more than makes sense.

When something goes wrong in a State Health System, the State Minister and the Federal Minister can often be seen pointing a finger of blame at each other.

 

 

Same with Education.

8 Parliaments, 8 times the expense, no accountability.

Why Not:
1 Nationality, 1 Parliament, 1/8^th the expense, and ONE Minister with no other government to blame for mistakes?

We worry about who donates how much to different parties at election time, but it is the Federal Government itself that holds the biggest slush fund to buy votes. A Federal leader promises billions for a road – but if a different party wins a state election, the money stays in the federal slush fund.

OUR money.

 

 

 

The worst thing, though, is that not all Australians have a chance to act on things that will affect all Australians.

Mining offers a great example of how this mess makes fewer people accountable to the people.

The stuff people mine belongs to the state where it is mined. The state gets taxes in the form of Royalties.

The Environment belongs to all Australians. The Federal government recently gave the power to make some environmental decisions to the Queensland Government. If the indirect result of mining in Queensland is destruction of the Barrier Reef, who should we hold accountable? How? How long will it take? Do we have the power to prevent disaster, or can we only complain after it’s too late?

If someone in Victoria, or NSW or WA wants to protect the Barrier Reef, who will the Queensland Government listen to? If not their own good conscience, then only the people of Queensland.

Next to Antarctica, Australia is the driest continent on Earth. And somebody is planning – with a high prospect of success – to drill fracking holes deeper than our best water supply, and poison the Great Artesian Basin in Qld, NSW, the NT and SA.

Forget the fact that people surrender power reluctantly. We MUST join together and withdraw consent for the existence of State Governments. State Politicians might squeal a short while, but business people won’t care if it eliminates a whole layer of bureaucratic obstacles from their path.

With a saner, new Constitution that provides for

• direct election of a President,
• a solid system of checks and balances on power,
• the elimination of State Governments and
• an enhanced power for people to petition the President,

all Australians can have a truly meaningful say on things affecting all Australians.

And we’ll save a bucket-load of money in the process.

 

The draft begins with a preamble saying, amongst other things, we value the earth that sustains us. It abolishes states. At S83 it makes clear that Government are custodians of the environment, and requires public discussion before plans can be made that compromise our national heritage. You can read the text of the draft here or PM me through the facebook page and I will happily email you a more readable PDF. The draft DOES need everybody's input, it is just designed to start discussions. 

 

Please join the discussion if you agree Australia needs a new and more democratic constitution. If you don't want to use blogger, you can discuss the idea via facebook.

 

 

*Tax:

 

In 1942 the federal government introduced legislation that increased the federal government income tax rates to raise more revenue. The legislation provided for reimbursement grants to the states provided that they ceased to levy their own income taxes. Although a state could legally continue to impose its income tax, doing so would impose an increased burden on its residents and also disqualify that state from receiving federal government grants. In practice, this prevented the states from continuing to levy their own income taxes. The uniform taxation arrangements were initially only meant to apply for the duration of the Second World War and one year thereafter. At the end of the War, the states sought to regain their income taxing powers but were unsuccessful.

**For more about water: