Just Grounds Community

For Like minded people who like to see-

HOW MUCH POWER DO WE PEOPLE REALLY HAVE ? A CLOSER LOOK ... and something to think about

First – many thanks to Denise for her discussion „PEOPLE POWER 2012 – AUSSIE STYLE“. The input from so many members lead me to take a step back and dig a little deeper to understand the situation in which we find ourselves.

We think we are a democracy – well – we live in a representative democracy.
This has obvously a different meaning for different people. So let’s have a closer look what it really means:

We have the constitutional right
to vote for a candidate of our choosing from our electorate and we think he/her is the one who represents us and we only can hope that he/she does not betray us.
But there is no law, which says that they have to work on behalf or for the benefit of their electorate, their voters.

But there – our democratic right ends in reality.

We have the right to petition
but as we all know, petitions are not binding for the government.

One has to wonder, why the Opposition didn’t advertise the petition against the Carbon Tax. It was in some (or most) LNP MPs website, but so far hidden, that one had difficulties to find it.
And furthermore, why didn’t the LNP politicians – having dozens of speaches against the Carbon Tax not once advertise the possibility and the importance of signing the petition in any of their many speaches. They could have easily rallied some hunderts of thousands of signatures by advising every local and federal office to approach people and let them sign the petition. What was the real reason that they didn’t do it – or didn’t they care?

3. We have the referendum (for governments only)

What is interesting:
Our founding fathers implemented the „referendum“ into the Australian constitution , but not as it was intended by the Swiss Constitution (from where they were inspired), to give the people more political rights, but to have another „goodlooking“ feature in their Constitution, which had nothing to do with democratic rights at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Constitutional_History

“In the 1890s, two constitutional conventions were called, which ultimately adopted a constitution based on a combination of British, American and other models (monarchy and parliamentary government from Britain, federalism from the United States, the use of the referendum from Switzerland). This constitution was then approved by the voters in each of the six colonies. (At the time women had the vote in only one of them: South Australia, and Aboriginal Australians in South Australia and Queensland only).”

So - if we are happy enough to agree with how our government performs their tasks – then we are just lucky – because we have no real influence on what they are doing.
No complaining, no praying, no swearing, no treatening, no insults – nothing will change this situation. Not even the wish: „They have to listen to us!“ will help us.
Because according to the law, they don’t have to listen to anybody but themselves, their interests and/or most likely, their party line.

If you are content with your constitutional right, just to vote for your „representative“ – then you don’t have to read any further.

If you are not happy with this situation, then there would be only one way to change it.

The Implementation of some more and urgently needed democratic rights for the Australian people.

At this time, the political power is concentrated in the hands of about 150-200 people in Canberra to rule over more than 22 Million people in Australia. And for whom ever we vote for – most of these these people don’t want us to have any say in our own destiny.

When in the 1890s the constitutional conventions adopted the „referendum“ out of the Swiss Constitution – they knew well, that only the full text of „Initiatives and Referenda“ would give the people the democratic rights to decide what is best for them. But they deliberately didn’t want to do that. And that didn’t change to this day.

The part of the Swiss Constitution, containing the articles in question isa ttached as a pdf file.
Unfortunately I didn’t find any other references (in English) from the many countries which enjoy the privilege of having the same „direct democratic“ instruments as Switzerland. There are many more today.

So it can only be repeated:
No complaining, no praying, no swearing, no treatening, no insults – nothing will change this situation. Not even the wish: „They have to listen to us!“ will help us.
Because, by law, they don’t have to listen to nobody but themselves, their interests and/or their party line.

For some of us – this insight (if agreed to) may be very painful – a very inconvenient truth indeed, but isn’t it the TRUTH – which set us free?

While I hope, that nobody takes offence here – I also hope that there will be a growing understanding what democracy really means and if we want to be part of the governments decisions, we will have to change something.

Sincerely Yours,
Pam

Tags: democracy, direct, initiatives, people, power, referenda

Attachments:

const_en_referenda.doc, 59 KB

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Martin Essenberg on January 17, 2012 at 9:03pm

For most of my life I didn't think the people had much power. When young I watched hundreds of thousands of people oppose the Vietnam war yet the war and casualties continued.

Later Howard brought in the gun laws and again hundreds of thousands protested futilely. Then there was the GST with lots of petitions and we all got ignored.

I think it was in 2003 I was in a crowd of 50,000 in Brisbane opposing Australias entry into the Iraq war- some 500,000 people marched throughout Australia. Yet without a referendum on a non-essential war our troops were sent off and a couple of billion dollars a year stolen from the public purse to pay for the war.

Of course the politicians in both major parties don't support CIR or democracy. They like to keep things this way. We, the people, are treated like so many sheep.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pam Hushing on January 18, 2012 at 6:26pm

Martin,

I agree with all you said - it's an absolute disgrace for a socalled democracy" - so where would you see a possible the solution?

I'm well aware it wouldn't be an easy task to change this more and more "dictatorial" and disgraceful situation around - unless - our Australian friends and compatriots start to wake up and see, where it will lead if we don't do something.

Cheers.

Pam

Martin Essenberg said:

For most of my life I didn't think the people had much power. When young I watched hundreds of thousands of people oppose the Vietnam war yet the war and casualties continued.

Later Howard brought in the gun laws and again hundreds of thousands protested futilely. Then there was the GST with lots of petitions and we all got ignored.

I think it was in 2003 I was in a crowd of 50,000 in Brisbane opposing Australias entry into the Iraq war- some 500,000 people marched throughout Australia. Yet without a referendum on a non-essential war our troops were sent off and a couple of billion dollars a year stolen from the public purse to pay for the war.

Of course the politicians in both major parties don't support CIR or democracy. They like to keep things this way. We, the people, are treated like so many sheep.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jan Courtney on January 18, 2012 at 8:07pm

Martin and Pam, you are both barking up the wrong tree. I wonder if you are confusing anarchy with democracy, as there do have to be social regulations to live by. ne would hope that any new government would have learned from the past mistakes in Vietnam and a blind support for the USA. I certainly do not believe in the Marxist government Labor is trying to burden us with, but by voting for minor parties and individuals, you will just play into their hands. We need a clear cut win for the Coalition to get this country back on track. The previous Coalition government had left the country is a very healthy, debt free state, we are now in debt to the tune of about $30 Billion and growing. Now is Bob Katter or Pauling Hanson or the Sex Party, the Shooters Party or any of the many others going to be able to halt this mad descent into ruin Australia is being driven into - I don't think so, in fact I know so. In my 70 plus years there has NEVER been a government anywhere near as bad as what we have now and we must get rid of them completely and give a new government a CLEAR MANDATE to begin to clear up the mess.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pam Hushing on January 18, 2012 at 9:32pm

Hi Bev,

You mean he will give us some "SHOWTIME"?

Pam

Beverley Prescott said:

Everyone reckons Bob Katter would fix everything - ask him what he thinks.

He may be the one to give you some time, Pam.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pam Hushing on January 18, 2012 at 10:38pm

Hi Jan,

I cannot speak for Martin - but I'm sure that I am not confusing anarchy with democracy.

But what I'm sure about is, that if we don't start to think about implementing (and asking for) some more democratic rights for the Australian people - there will be no big change.

What I said at the very beginning:

"At this time, the political power is concentrated in the hands of about 150-200 people in Canberra to rule over more than 22 Million people in Australia. And for whom ever we vote for – most of these these people don’t want us to have any say in our own destiny.

And I don't think that voting for small parties or Independents will bring any betterment of the situation.

And the reminder from the start is:

We have the constitutional right
to vote for a candidate of our choosing from our electorate and we think he/her is the one who represents us and we only can hope that he/she does not betray us.
But there is no law, which says that they have to work on behalf or for the benefit of their electorate, their voters.

And there – our democratic right ends in reality.

Ideas on how to change this situation are greatly appreciated.

Cheers

Pam

Jan Courtney said:

Martin and Pam, you are both barking up the wrong tree. I wonder if you are confusing anarchy with democracy, as there do have to be social regulations to live by. ne would hope that any new government would have learned from the past mistakes in Vietnam and a blind support for the USA. I certainly do not believe in the Marxist government Labor is trying to burden us with, but by voting for minor parties and individuals, you will just play into their hands. We need a clear cut win for the Coalition to get this country back on track. The previous Coalition government had left the country is a very healthy, debt free state, we are now in debt to the tune of about $30 Billion and growing. Now is Bob Katter or Pauling Hanson or the Sex Party, the Shooters Party or any of the many others going to be able to halt this mad descent into ruin Australia is being driven into - I don't think so, in fact I know so. In my 70 plus years there has NEVER been a government anywhere near as bad as what we have now and we must get rid of them completely and give a new government a CLEAR MANDATE to begin to clear up the mess.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Martin Essenberg on January 19, 2012 at 10:07am

We have very low debt compared to other countries. Government debt is the smallest with most debt being in the financial system and household debt. According to the chart we should all emigrate to NZ which has even a smaller percentage debt overall (although a large government debt)

.............. we are now in debt to the tune of about $30 Billion and growing.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pam Hushing on January 19, 2012 at 11:41am

Hi Martin,

I just found a quite "sobering" list of external debt in absolute figures (203 countries in comparison).

http://www.economypedia.com/wiki/index.php?title=Government_debt#De...

It's not quite 2011 - but still - it gives something to think about.

Cheers

Pam

PS. Hey mate, let's stick together - we really don't want to emigrate to somewhere else - don't we?

Martin Essenberg said:

We have very low debt compared to other countries. Government debt is the smallest with most debt being in the financial system and household debt. According to the chart we should all emigrate to NZ which has even a smaller percentage debt overall (although a large government debt)

.............. we are now in debt to the tune of about $30 Billion and growing.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pam Hushing on January 23, 2012 at 9:26pm

Hi all,

Coming back to my discussion:

Imagine just for one moment to have a „mandatory referendum“ which binds the government to put to the vote of the people:

Art. 140 Mandatory referendum

1 The following must be put to the vote of the People and the States and Territories:

a. amendments to the Federal Constitution;

b. accession to organisations for collective security or to supranational communities;
(e.g. UN, Kyoto, UN Agenda 21 etc.)

c. federal acts that are not based on a provision of the Constitution and whose term of

validity exceeds one year; such federal acts must be put to the vote within one year of being

passed by the Federal Assembly. (e.g. Clear Energy Act etc.)

2 The following shall be submitted to a vote of the People:

a. popular initiatives for a complete revision of the Federal Constitution;

Wouldn’t this be a relieve already? And it would be one mess less already – the Clean Energy Bill.
Cheers
Pam

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pam Hushing on January 23, 2012 at 9:56pm

Hi Ian,

1a means simply that everything that will change the constitution is subject to a referendum

(similar or same as in Australia)

What 2 is concerned:

This has to do with initiatives which are in the earlier articles 138 - etc. (the ones you have already seen as file attached to the main introduction of this discussion)

The question is: Shouldn't we ask for "art 138 - 142" ? - If you want "Mandatory Referendum" only, then you could leave 2 away. I agree. But it wouldn't be the full package of democratic rights.

Thanks for your question.

Cheers

Pam

Ian Macrae Yeates said:

Interesting, Pam.

I would delete 2 though. There is plenty to consider with a, b, c of 1.

Also 2 is open. It doesn't spell out what is planned to be changed. Could you elaborate on '1 a' please?

Cheers,

Ian

Pam Hushing said:

Hi all,

Coming back to my discussion:

Imagine just for one moment to have a „mandatory referendum“ which binds the government to put to the vote of the people:

Art. 140          Mandatory referendum

1      The following must be put to the vote of the People and the States and Territories:

a.     amendments to the Federal Constitution;

b.     accession to organisations for collective security or to supranational communities;
        (e.g. UN, Kyoto, UN Agenda 21 etc.)

c.     federal acts that are not based on a provision of the Constitution and whose term of

        validity exceeds one year; such federal acts must be put to the vote within one year of being

       passed by the Federal Assembly. (e.g. Clear Energy Act etc.)

2      The following shall be submitted to a vote of the People:

a.     popular initiatives for a complete revision of the Federal Constitution;

Wouldn’t this be a relieve already? And it would be one mess less already – the Clean Energy Bill.
Cheers
Pam

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Leon Pittard on January 24, 2012 at 6:13am

Hi Martin,

I am not sure about this graph. Aus current Gov debt is close to 200bn and total Aus debt at about 600bn. According to Ross Greenwood 2gb on Jan 17, and Dr David Evans interview on Thursday 19.1.12. I thought it was 200bn total but that is Gov alone. You may be interested to listen here: http://fairdinkumradio.com/ Regards, leon

Martin Essenberg said:

We have very low debt compared to other countries. Government debt is the smallest with most debt being in the financial system and household debt. According to the chart we should all emigrate to NZ which has even a smaller percentage debt overall (although a large government debt)

.............. we are now in debt to the tune of about $30 Billion and growing.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pam Hushing on January 24, 2012 at 11:52am

Hi Ian,

Just weanted to show how much relieve a "mandatory referendum" would be. But I still think,

the entire package of "direct democratic" instrument should be asked for. All of them except the "Recall option" which was discussed in NSW recently.

see the report: http://www.gtcentre.unsw.edu.au/sites/gtcentre.unsw.edu.au/files/Re...

Recall doesn't do anything good - because everthing else remains the same.

Cheers

Pam

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pam Hushing on January 24, 2012 at 7:23pm

Hi Ian,

I see you have read it - thanks for that.

That's excactly the problem for a lot of direct democracy movements - as soon as they talk about recall, the politicians become scared like hell - and they wont help a bit to get the rest of it.

Cheers

Pam

Ian Macrae Yeates said:

Hi Pam,

As you say the recall option doesn't look like a goer:

Cheers,

Ian

Professor Twomey has concluded, ‗[t]he reason is likely to be the more active use in
Switzerland of citizens‘ initiated referendums to change unpopular laws or policies,
rather than the removal of their various supporters.