Copy: All
Australian Parliamentarians - All State Parliamentarians - Oz papers - Others -
Elsewhere at Will
The Secretariat,
Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee,
Re: Report - Senate Inquiry Into an
Dear Louise Gell,
It’s
difficult to know to whom to address this letter… Certainly not your Secretariat…
Or Senator Payne or Senator Scullion who defined their stances in “additional
comments” to the report… For this has to do with one or more Senators who
sat on the Committee while being also current members of the Australian
Republican Movement.
This lodger of Senate Inquiry Submission Number 17 completely
rejects the Committee’s report as a blatant reconstitution of the ARM’s
submission at the expense of all other submissions… A reconstitution which
causes the ARM’s submission to appear to be the official “model”.
It
is suggested this government funded Inquiry has been mishandled so as to
further promote the ARM submission... And deem all other Submissions as fully
investigated and unsuitable as if by government edict.
Need
is sorely felt for a ‘Senate Inquiry’ into this ‘Senate Inquiry Into An
Australian Republic’ where quotations from numerous submissions are included in
the Inquiry’s report to produce an almost verbatim repetition of the ARM’s
hackneyed head-of-state suggestions… As follows
* 8.51 The Committee recommends that this second plebiscite include the
following five alternative methods of selecting a head of state:
* Senate Inquiry
Recommendation ^ ARM
Submission #471
* 1. Prime Ministerial appointment
^ Model
One - Prime Minister Appoints the President:
* 2. Appointment by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of
parliament
^
Model Three - Presidential Assembly Elects the President:
* 3. Appointment by an electoral college, elected same basis as the
Senate
^ Model Two - People Nominate, Parliament Appoints President:
* 4. Direct election of Parliament's candidates: Powers of HoS to be
codified
^ Model Five - People Elect From Parliament’s List:
* 5. Direct election by the people: Powers of head of state to be
codified
^ Model Four - People Elect the President:
Both the ARM and the Senate
Inquiry persist in defining a model for a head-of-state… Yet 1998’s Con-Con
asked “which republic model should be put to the voters to consider against *the current system of government”.
My republic model
proposes
To be considered “against *the current system of government”.
And
yes… There is for me personal interest in this Senate Inquiry in as much as I
previously submitted my republic model to the ARM and the ARM completely
ignored it… And in light of my several contacts with the ARM I recorded with
the Inquiry’s Secretariat a written opinion-cum-concern that the Senate Inquiry
Committee would likewise ignore it … Which it did.
On
Yet
(surprise, surprise) there was time at
Further…
Literally hundreds of letters acknowledging my model have I on file from
members of all political parties of federal, state and local governments and
others around
Those
letters include contact from the four state premiers who made Submissions 563, 704, 721 & 722 to the
Senate Inquiry and to whom my model is well known.
Yet
although four state premiers made Submissions to the Senate Inquiry none was
called to give evidence, nor was any Submission published, as was my republic
model, which by coincidence was for a “STATES” republic... Curious
indeed.
Email – From the Senate Inquiry this Realist-royalist
believes that if the Royalists of Oz, including
our Prime Minister, continue to maintain the Queen has a role in Australian
governance and thus refuse to seriously consider a
‘royalist-acceptable-republic’ they put our current system in jeopardy.
My
model (STATES) is aimed at the heart of Oz and caters to the majority of
Australians… The Oz of middle-Australia… It sidelines the extremes of
riveted-royalists (who
insist on monarchy) and radical-republicans (who insist on national (s)election) to provide an Australian
republic almost as is today’s
Preserves what Oz has ___
and ___ Proposes what Oz wants
With My Best
Regards...
Yogi
Submission
Number_17
Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee,
Room S1.61, Parliament House,
To The Senate Committee,
Please receive my _
Submission to the Senate Legal &
Constitutional References Committee (2003)
Re: Inquiry into
an Australian republic.
This Submission
– States Head-of-State Selection (STATES) Republic Model –
Is a model of a republic for
the Commonwealth of Australia
It is NOT a model of a head-of-state for
“STATES”
is
Put
simply STATES calls upon
"
STATES
does not propose any specific process but suggests each state may use its own
individual method of head-of-state appointment or all may agree or
be required to use the same method. This flexibility is seen as a strength in
improving the republic _ Not a weakness in converting-cum-devising the system.
Current
parliamentary and
With respect the Committee is requested to refer to my website…
www.users.bigpond.com/republic.australia/
…which
describes the republic-model in full… And the enclosed CD which carries my
website and supportive WORD documents.
STATES
is a model designed to win the approval of all
States are defined
geographically
States’-people are
defined demographically.
can
become
Yours Faithfully,
Yogi Marriott…
Yogi.
Submission
Number_17A
Please
receive my supplementary (to number 17) _
Submission to the Senate Legal & Constitutional
References Committee (2003)
Re: Moving Towards An
Since
its federation
Now,
not confined to political lines, Republicans (= elect Oz HoS) want the country to
become a republic and Royalists (= keep Queen) want the monarchy
retained.
Each
of these minorities is entitled to claim its respective want. A want that has already split the nation… A
want which surely should be an apolitical issue because becoming republic is
not simply a political “Us and Them”
issue… It’s an enduring circumstance affecting each and every Australian
regardless of political persuasion.
Sadly Republicans and Royalists are not expected to liaise to
seek agreement and will continue to impose their minority views on our nation
whose majority-middle has not been given a choice…
ie. A system. eg. Monarchy/Westminster against Republic/What?
Thus
to regard becoming republic as not a politically-bipartisan-undertaking any
government must be seen as intent on capturing the high ground of governance as
its very own political prize.
So
when Oz becomes republic, as surely it inevitably must, the
fair-go-for-all-Australians-choice should be to adopt our current system and
replace only the monarchy… Thus to become a republic offering no such political
prize.
For surveys show more
than 50% of middle-Australia favours becoming republic.
My Submission No 17 to
the Senate Legal & Constitutional References Committee is such a model and
may be viewed at
www.users.bigpond.com/republic.australia/
States Head-of-State
Selection (STATES) Republic Model
“STATES” is
“STATES” is a model for an
Australian republic – NOT a model for a head-of-state
With My Regards,
Yogi
Marriott…
Yogi.
Submission
Number_17B
Please
receive my (second) supplementary (to number 17) _
Submission to the Senate Legal & Constitutional
References Committee (2003)
Re Question 26 :
Should there be an initial plebiscite to decide whether
An Initial Plebiscite ?
A conception patriots have when patriots have no
conception.
Bleats
for a plebiscite obviously come from those who are bereft of a worthwhile
republic system… For why indeed would any individual, group, political party or
republic movement, with a workable model for a republic, call for a plebiscite?
An
Undecided Model ?
An
elusive system a state has when a state has an elusive system.
Of
many proposed ___ The three ‘models’ put to Canberra’s 1998 Constitutional
Convention were recorded in that Convention’s Communiqué by its
bipartisan-parliamentary-editors as being “categories
of model for a republic”.
Likewise couched ___ Are not ‘models’ featured in the Senate
Inquiry’s Discussion Paper, and the pro-Submissions received, also “categories of model for a republic”?
---ooOoo---
Becoming republic should
be per a-political insight _ Not per a factional catfight.
My Submission No 17 to
the Senate Legal & Constitutional References Committee (2003) is a model
for a Republic of the Commonwealth of
www.users.bigpond.com/republic.australia/
States Head-of-State
Selection (STATES) Republic Model
“STATES” is
“STATES”
is a model for an Australian republic – NOT a model for a head-of-state
With My Regards,
Yogi
Marriott…
Yogi.
Submission
Number_17C
Please
receive my
(third) supplementary (to number 17) _
Submission to the Senate Legal & Constitutional
References Committee (2003)
Re: Moving Towards An
From
the outset the subject of
Such
was the attitude throughout Con-Con and that situation appears to persist at Senate
Inquiry Submissions closure… Upon viewing Submissions received.
Hopefully
my States Head-of-State Selection (STATES) Republic model (Sub 17) has
illustrated there is a middle-way… Which Oz federation says will work.
Republicans
have claimed only 10% of Australians want to retain the Queen… Just as readily
Royalists could claim only 10% of Australians want an executive HoS.
Thus
a STATES “middle-way” might be supported by up to say 80% of citizens… The sort
of majority Oz deserves to have for a secure and successful republic.
For
the choice is/was not our Queen as against an executive head-of-state… The
question was our Monarchy/Westminster-system against a Republic/What-system.
And a republic is
undoubtedly what 50% of “middle-Australians” wants to become.
---ooOoo---
Becoming republic should
be per a-political insight _ Not per a factional catfight.
My Submission No 17 to
the Senate Legal & Constitutional References Committee
is a model for a… Republic of the Commonwealth of
Oz retains the system it
has _ And its majority-middle gains the republic it wants.
www.users.bigpond.com/republic.australia/
States Head-of-State
Selection (STATES) Republic Model
“STATES” is
“STATES”
is a model for an Australian republic – NOT a model for a head-of-state
With My Regards,
Yogi
Marriott…
Yogi.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Royalists Realists Republicans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1998’s Con-Con question
“which republic model”-(snip)-“the current system of government” |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
1999’s Referendum question “Queen and Governor-General”-(snip)-“replaced by a President” |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Royalists |
|
1999 Referendum Result |
|
Republicans |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
55% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
45% |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||