<><><><><>
128. Mode of altering the Constitution
This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner:
The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament, and not less than two nor more than six months after its passage through both Houses the proposed law shall be submitted in each State and Territory to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the House of Representatives.
But if either House passes any such proposed law by an absolute majority, and the other House rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with any amendment to which the first-mentioned House will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the first-mentioned House in the same or the next session again passes the proposed law by an absolute majority with or without any amendment which has been made or agreed to by the other House, and such other House rejects or fails to pass it or passes it with any amendment to which the first-mentioned House will not agree, the Governor-General may submit the proposed law as last proposed by the first-mentioned House, and either with or without any amendments subsequently agreed to by both Houses, to the electors in each State and Territory qualified to vote for the election of the House of Representatives.
When a proposed law is submitted to the electors the vote shall be taken in such manner as the Parliament prescribes. But until the qualification of electors of members of the House of Representatives becomes uniform throughout the Commonwealth, only one-half the electors voting for and against the proposed law shall be counted in any State in which adult suffrage prevails.
And if in a majority of the States a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting also approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent.
No alteration diminishing the proportionate representation of any State in either House of the Parliament, or the minimum number of representatives of a State in the House of Representatives, or increasing, diminishing, or otherwise altering the limits of the State, or in any manner affecting the provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto, shall become law unless the majority of the electors voting in that State approve the proposed law.
In this section, Territory means any territory referred to in section one hundred and twenty-two of this Constitution in respect of which there is in force a law allowing its representation in the House of Representatives.
<>
Section 128 lays out the method by which the Constitution can be altered and it s a big monstrosity of a thing.
The Short version of s.128 is:
1. There needs to be 67% approval in both of the Houses for a Constitutional alteration to be put to the people.
1a. If not, the Governor-General can override this and still put it to the people.
2. There needs to be a majority of electors.
2a. In a majority of states.
2b. People who live in a territory are not part of 2a.
3. And if the parliament wants to fiddle with the proportionate representation of any State, then that state has to also agree with it.
Before the 1977 referendum, only electors in the six states could vote at a referendum. Since the 1977 amendment was carried with 77.72% of the vote (see 2) and passed 6 states to nil (see 2a), the voters of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory have been eligible to vote in referendums. The law post 1977, now means that territorian votes are now counted towards the national total but the Territories do not count as states for the purpose of the requirement for a majority of states (see 2b).
Of the 44 referenda which have been held in Australia, only 8 have passed. That's just 18%. If you include the 4 plebiscites , then this improves to 20% but it's still awful. This and the fact that I think that rights are things which should always be subject to constant review due to old rights becoming obsolete and new rights being discovered, is the reason why I like that the Constitution doesn't have a bill of rights and not should it. If 4 times out of 5, a referendum is not going to pass, then something really important should be decided by legislation. To this end, is the teleology of the Constitution, that is the "why" of the thing.
The telos of the Australian Constitution can be found all the way back in clause 5:
"This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State;"
- Clause 5
The Constitution, is the set of rules which defines how you make rules. I very much think that a Bill of Rights, which is a claim by the people on the entity which has the set of rules, in principle runs counter to what the Constitution is for.
More broadly a constitution is in essence a contract between:
- the entity and each member: which in this case is between the Commonwealth and the people as a whole.
- the entity and each director: which in this case is between the Commonwealth and the directorship which is the parliament.
- the entity and the secretary: which in this case is between the Commonwealth and the Governor-General.
- every member with every other member: which in this case is between the people and the people.
People just don't live very long in relation to nations. People are like dandelions. They spring up and blossom for a while, the winds of history snuff them out just as quickly and leaves nothing to show that they were ever here at all. Unless you are someone famous or infamous, your name is just as likely to blow away on those same winds of history. The nation ultimately belongs to the living and not to the dead; so anything that the dead might have had to say to us, can be taken as advice but is still mostly only just that.
Contracts should be able to be changed if the terms are disagreeable to the parties. Making the underlying contract difficult to change because you falsely believe in the forever wisdom of some imagined patriarchy in the past, is the height of stupidity.
<><><><><><>
Oath
I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!
Affirmation
I, A.B., do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law.
(NOTE – The name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the time being is to be substituted from time to time.)
<>
Victoria, Edward Seventh next and then,
George the fifth in 1910.
Ed the Eighth soon abdicated,
Then George The Sixth was coronated.
After which Elizabeth,
Charlie Three upon her death.
Then Will and Kate might soon arrive,
And might well reign while they're alive.
George the Seventh maybe after,
If there is no foul disaster.
<><><><><><>
No comments:
Post a Comment