Re: Re: [WDDM] Proposal

["Annette Jackson" <aja95799(at)bigpond.net.au>]

PVR,l found this a few days ago,it was interesting that it had been talked about,and then rejected,

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Initiation by Commonwealth Bill

The first obvious feature of s. 128 is that a proposed alteration to the Constitution begins life as a Commonwealth Bill. Ordinarily it must pass by absolute majority(5) through each House of Parliament. As noted above, this puts effective control of the agenda for constitutional amendment in the hands of the Commonwealth Government of the day. Some commentators have suggested that this monopoly generates an automatic suspicion of centralism which helps explain the low strike rate for constitutional referenda, and that were moves made to 'federalise' and/or 'democratise' the initiation of referenda, it may improve the chances of success.(6)

The Constitutional Commission appointed by the Hawke Government examined the issue of referendum initiation. By majority it recommended against popular initiation along Swiss lines (e.g. a requisite number of signatures requesting a referendum), but agreed that a referendum should be held when, within the space of 12 months, the Parliaments of at least half the States proposed a constitutional alteration in identical terms (where those States represent at least 50 per cent of the national population).(7) Similarly, after rejecting the proposal once at its Melbourne (1975) session, the Australian Constitutional Convention resolved to support State-initiated referenda at the session held in Brisbane in 1985.(8)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Regards Martin Jackson

----- Original Message -----

From: Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan

To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net

Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 5:51 PM

Subject: Re: Re: [WDDM] Proposal

Dear Bruce,
You have said - "We must have the power to intervene, and getting I&R is the first step. Once that is achieved we can 'take charge of our governments'. Until that is achieved, we are whistling in the wind".

Assuming that the Swiss, who already have I&R in place, decide that they want to take charge of their government fully by doing away with the political parties, will the political parties agree to it? Is there such a possibility in the Swiss constitution, and if not, will the political parties allow such an amendment to be brought in? My guess is that the political parties will not allow this to happen.

Talking about other nations, may I know which of them is closest to being the second nation where I&R can be ushered in? I am unable to understand your optimism for WDDM with the current definition of DD. I believe that we should first concentrate on taking charge of governments, through constitutional means, and then the direct democratic processes like I&R can easily be ushered in.

You had said that WDDM stands for ushering in DD and not for any revolution. This is surprising. Then why call it a 'movement'? "DD education forum" would be a more appropriate name.

PVR