Showing posts with label Mark McMurtrie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mark McMurtrie. Show all posts

Monday, November 8, 2010

'HEARTS AND MINDS' KEY TO INDIGENOUS REFERENDUM

Updated 1 hour 29 minutes ago

Labor promised the referendum during the election campaign.

Labor promised the referendum during the election campaign. (AFP: Anoek De Groot, file photo)

A senior Aboriginal lawyer says the most difficult part of the referendum on recognition of Indigenous Australians in the constitution will be to convince most people of its importance.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has announced a panel to guide the nation towards a referendum on the subject, saying bipartisan political support for the change represents a key opportunity to act.

Larissa Behrendt, director of research at the Sydney University of Technology's Jumbunna Indigenous House of Learning, says any political support needs to be reflected in the community.

"I think what is going to be the challenge is getting the hearts and minds support from Australians to ensure that the majority of Australians in the majority of states vote yes," she said.

"The focus does need to be on that selling of why this is important to the community; otherwise I think that we're going to see what has been an important moment with parties coming together, won't actually find its way into the community."

Professor Behrendt told ABC News 24 there needs to be more discussion of what form the changes will take before any thought of a successful referendum can be considered.

"There are lots of complex issues in this debate, I would think that just because there's already agreement across political party about the fact that we should have constitution recognition doesn't at all settle what the form of words will be," she said.

"I think we can expect to see quite a range of views come from the Aboriginal community, the broader community and certainly a lot of human rights groups."

Her comments are reflected by Griffith University's AJ Brown, who says reform can only be successful if it is effectively explained to and shaped by the community.

"We really cannot afford to take a proposal to the people which does not have almost unanimous political support across the political parties and effectively no real opposition across the community," he said.

"So effectively it's got to reflect both a degree of political consensus that we really haven't seen since the 1967 change."

'Symbolic and practical'

A recent survey by Griffith University found 75 per cent of respondents supported a referendum on Indigenous recognition.

But Professor Brown says the push will hinge on the ability of the committee to articulate an effective change that embraces both symbolic and practical aspects of Indigenous recognition.

"This is a very important opportunity to engage Australians in a fresh debate about how we want our constitution to develop and change, and the place of Indigenous people in the constitution is a vitally important part of that," he said.

"What we're going to need to do is have a very sophisticated and well resourced process for teasing out what kind of constitutional recognition for Indigenous people will be both practical and effective, and symbolic."

He has also cautioned against the Government's decision to put a timeframe on the process, and says the pairing of the issue with local government recognition risks derailing both reforms.

"These things [referendums] are achievable, but they're only achievable if we have a very sophisticated process which is well resourced, and which isn't tied to arbitrary time frames," he said.

"The government would be well placed to take its lead from the panel on the timing as well as the nature of the change.

"So that a process can be put in place which isn't tied to trying to force a referendum through in the next two or three years, which we can predict will have lower chance of success, than one that might be pursued if we took slightly longer to get it right."

But Ms Gillard says the bipartisan political support for the change represents a key moment in Australian history.

"We have a once-in-50-year opportunity for our country," she said.

"I'm certain that if this referendum is not successful, there will not be another like it.

"Now is the right time to take the next step and to recognise in the Australian constitution the first peoples of our nation."

She says the panel will include Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, community leaders, constitutional experts and members of Parliament.

The panel will report to the Government by the end of 2011 on the best path towards the referendum.

Limited success

Since Federation, only eight of 44 referendums have been successful.

To succeed, the referendum must attract the support of a majority vote nationally plus a majority of votes in a majority of states.

While Attorney-General Robert McClelland acknowledges securing a yes vote in a referendum is "not easy", he says he takes heart from the 1967 referendum that gave Aboriginal people the vote.

But there was a failed attempt to include Indigenous Australians in the preamble to the Constitution in a referendum in 1999.

Held in conjunction with the Republic referendum, the new preamble would have recognised Indigenous Australians.

Penned by poet Les Murray and then prime minister John Howard, the version attracted much controversy and was ultimately rejected by nearly 60 per cent of voters.

INDIGENOUS RECOGNITION REFERENDUM 'LIKELY BY 2013'

Updated Wed Nov 3, 2010 3:29pm AEDT

Social Justice Commissioner Mick Gooda

Mick Gooda says he is confident he can reduce disadvantage and promote reconciliation (CRCAH)

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner says he is confident of achieving constitutional change by 2013.

In an address to the National Press Club, Mick Gooda committed to work towards a referendum which would recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Australian Constitution.

He says there is strong cross-party support.

"In all likelihood there will be a referendum within the next three years," he said.

Mr Gooda also acknowledged concern about the financial cost of a referendum and calls for the funds to be practically invested to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

"This process will give this generation of Australians the opportunity to say 'yes'. An opportunity to demonstrate goodwill and innate decency," he said.

Mr Gooda estimates between 12 million and 13 million people would need to respond with a yes vote to trigger constitutional changes.

He also says momentum towards reconciliation faltered after the apology to the Stolen Generations.

He says national surveys still highlight widespread racial prejudice.

"When the national apology was made in February 2008, I believed Australia was ready for this new, stronger, deeper relationship," he said.

"The nation took a great leap forward that day - but somehow soon after that we lost momentum and despite much of the goodwill on both sides of the paddock, there are several issues we have to confront as a nation to reset this relationship."

Mr Gooda says he initially felt mixed emotions when appointed for the five-year term as commissioner, about nine months ago.

He says he is driven by hope and the possibility of change.

"I can assure you the priorities are underpinned by two unshakeable and personal commitments," he said.

"The first is my commitment to addressing the disadvantages still faced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; the second is my commitment to doing all in my power to achieve a truly reconciled Australia."

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

THE ENGLISH ACT OF PARLIAMENT THAT ESTABLISHES YOUR STRAWMAN

Royal arms

Cestui Que Vie Act 1666

1666 CHAPTER 11 18_and_19_Cha_2

An Act for Redresse of Inconveniencies by want of Proofe of the Deceases of Persons beyond the Seas or absenting themselves, upon whose Lives Estates doe depend.

X1Recital that Cestui que vies have gone beyond Sea, and that Reversioners cannot find out whether they are alive or dead.

Whereas diverse Lords of Mannours and others have granted Estates by Lease for one or more life or lives, or else for yeares determinable upon one or more life or lives And it hath often happened that such person or persons for whose life or lives such Estates have beene granted have gone beyond the Seas or soe absented themselves for many yeares that the Lessors and Reversioners cannot finde out whether such person or persons be alive or dead by reason whereof such Lessors and Reversioners have beene held out of possession of their Tenements for many yeares after all the lives upon which such Estates depend are dead in regard that the Lessors and Reversioners when they have brought Actions for the recovery of their Tenements have beene putt upon it to prove the death of their Tennants when it is almost impossible for them to discover the same, For remedy of which mischeife soe frequently happening to such Lessors or Reversioners.

Annotations:

Modifications etc. (not altering text)

C1Short title “The Cestui que Vie Act 1666” given by Statute Law Revision Act 1948 (c. 62), Sch. 2

C2Preamble omitted in part under authority of Statute Law Revision Act 1948 (c. 62), Sch. 1

C3Certain words of enactment repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1888 (c. 3) and remainder omitted under authority of Statute Law Revision Act 1948 (c. 62), s. 3

Editorial Information

X1Abbreviations or contractions in the original form of this Act have been expanded into modern lettering in the text set out above and below.

[I.]Cestui que vie remaining beyond Sea for Seven Years together and no Proof of their Lives, Judge in Action to direct a Verdict as though Cestui que vie were dead

If such person or persons for whose life or lives such Estates have beene or shall be granted as aforesaid shall remaine beyond the Seas or elsewhere absent themselves in this Realme by the space of seaven yeares together and noe sufficient and evident proofe be made of the lives of such person or persons respectively in any Action commenced for recovery of such Tenements by the Lessors or Reversioners in every such case the person or persons upon whose life or lives such Estate depended shall be accounted as naturally dead, And in every Action brought for the recovery of the said Tenements by the Lessors or Reversioners their Heires or Assignes, the Judges before whom such Action shall be brought shall direct the Jury to give their Verdict as if the person soe remaining beyond the Seas or otherwise absenting himselfe were dead.

II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F1

Annotations:

Amendments (Textual)

F1S. II repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1948 (c. 62), Sch. 1

III. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F1

Annotations:

Amendments (Textual)

F1S. III repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1863 (c. 125)

IVIf the supposed dead Man prove to be alive, then the Title is revested. Action for mean Profits with Interest

[ X1Provided alwayes That if any person or [X2person or] persons shall be evicted out of any Lands or Tenements by vertue of this Act, and afterwards if such person or persons upon whose life or lives such Estate or Estates depend shall returne againe from beyond the Seas, or shall on proofe in any Action to be brought for recovery of the same [X2to] be made appeare to be liveing; or to have beene liveing at the time of the Eviction That then and from thenceforth the Tennant or Lessee who was outed of the same his or their Executors Administrators or Assignes shall or may reenter repossesse have hold and enjoy the said Lands or Tenements in his or their former Estate for and dureing the Life or Lives or soe long terme as the said person or persons upon whose Life or Lives the said Estate or Estates depend shall be liveing, and alsoe shall upon Action or Actions to be brought by him or them against the Lessors Reversioners or Tennants in possession or other persons respectively which since the time of the said Eviction received the Proffitts of the said Lands or Tenements recover for damages the full Proffitts of the said Lands or Tenements respectively with lawfull Interest for and from the time that he or they were outed of the said Lands or Tenements, and kepte or held out of the same by the said Lessors Reversioners Tennants or other persons who after the said Eviction received the Proffitts of the said Lands or Tenements or any of them respectively as well in the case when the said person or persons upon whose Life or Lives such Estate or Estates did depend are or shall be dead at the time of bringing of the said Action or Actions as if the said person or persons where then liveing.]

Annotations:

Editorial Information

X1annexed to the Original Act in a separate Schedule

X2Variant reading of the text noted in The Statutes of the Realm as follows: O. omits [O. refers to a collection in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge]

Saturday, August 28, 2010

GOVERNOR-GENERAL QUENTIN BRYCE TOLD NO CONFLICT IN DISPUTE

Phillip Hudson From: Herald Sun August 28, 2010 12:00AM
Quentin Bryce

Governor-General Quentin Bryce. Picture: Anthony Weate Source: The Courier-Mail

GOVERNOR-General Quentin Bryce would not have to step aside if she were called on to settle the political deadlock in Canberra, despite Labor powerbroker Bill Shorten being her son-in-law.

Government House released legal advice from Solicitor-General Stephen Gageler that said there was no constitutional or other legal impediment that would stop her doing her job.

As Bryce wrote to Mr Gageler on Monday saying she had "considerable concern'' after conflict-of-interest claims were raised because her daughter Chloe is married to Mr Shorten.

In her letter, Ms Bryce said circumstances could require her to be "playing some role'' in settling the deadlock, and "integrity and trust'' in the office of Governor-General were of the utmost importance.

Mr Gageler said that in normal circumstances the Governor-General would take advice from the prime minister, but in extraordinary circumstances the Governor-General may have to exercise her own deliberative judgment.

He said extraordinary circumstances "cannot wholly be excluded'' and would be "politically charged'' and require delicate judgment with "far-reaching'' consequences.

Mr Gageler said former GGs had been politicians and had maintained continuing personal relationships with MPs and that did not disqualify them from holding the office or performing the job.

"Where they exist, connections and relationships of that kind must be recognised as realities. They fall to be managed as a matter of prudence, not of legal obligation or legal impediment,'' he wrote.

"My advice to Her Excellency is that the marriage of her daughter to Mr Shorten gives rise to no constitutional or other legal impediment to the proper discharge of her functions of office.''