[plug] [OT] Ferral Politics

[Bret Busby]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Russell Steicke wrote:

> 
> In Australia?  You must be joking.  Our record of approving
> constitutional changes (which others have noted does not involve state
> governments) is very low, although I forget the historical numbers.  We
> passed on the republic opportunity, and all four of the questions in the
> bicentennial referendum were voted down.
> 

Actually, ..... we were denied an opportunity to become a republic.

The question has never been put to a referendum (well, not in the last 20
odd years, anyway, and, they have been very odd years).

We instead had a particular model offerred, which would have conferred a
kingship, or, dictatorship, on the prime minister (the authority to
irrevocably sack the equivalent of a governor-general, without requiring
justification, which would have meant that a prime minister would have
been unfettered in power). To vote for an absolute monarchy, or, a
dictatorship, is different to voting for becoming a republic.

We were the victims of a conspiracy by the feral parliament, to deny us
the choice of whether we became a republic, because the feral parliament
went to a great amount of effort, and, spent a great amount of OUR money,
to avoid putting the question "Do you want australia to become a
republic".

If that question was ever put, and, if it obtained the required
majorities, THEN a model that the required majority of the people agreed
on, could be obtained, or not.

But, australia has not been offered the choice of whether australia should
become a republic, despite what the media and the politicians have said.

-- 
Bret Busby
..........