Showing posts with label Australian Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Australian Constitution. Show all posts

Monday 2 February 2015

The so-called Prime Minister for Indigenous Australia needs to organize himself - there are only twenty sitting days left before the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Act expires


Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott needs to focus on essentials when Parliament resumes on 9 February 2015.

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Act 2013 ceases to have effect on 27 March 2015.

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act of Recognition Review Panel pointed this out when it delivered its final report to the Abbott Government in September 2014, so there is no excuse for extension of this act not being in the first order of business at the commencement of this parliamentary year.

Monday 15 September 2014

Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples: review report required by legislation to be handed to federal government by 27 September 2014


Tony Abbott is determined that recognising indigenous people in Australia's constitution is a "national crusade'' that should be important to everyone…. He has promised to finalise a draft form of words for changing the constitution by September. [The Australian, 26 January 2014]

Under federal legislation, An Act to provide for the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, enacted by the former Gillard Government, a review committee comprising former Nationals MP & Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson, Campaign Director of Recognise Tanya Hosch and Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister & Cabinet Mr Richard Eccles, was formed by the Abbott Government in March 2014.

This committee is under a mandatory deadline and has until 27 September 2014 to submit its report to the Federal Government on support for a referendum to amend the Constitution.

Another requirement under this legislation means that the Abbott Government must table this review committee report in the House of Representatives within 15 sitting days of receiving it - that is on or before 27 November 2014.

Thus far there has been no media release from the Minister for Indigenous Affairs concerning receipt of the report.

As has become the norm these days, Abbott & Co. appear to be briefing the media before the Australian Parliament and people:

TONY Abbott’s hand-picked panel advising on a constitutional change to recognise Aborigines has paved the way for delaying a vote as late as the 50th anniv­ersary of the highly successful 1967 “Aboriginal” referendum.
The panel is concerned that the public is not nearly ready for a recognition referendum and has raised the possibility of delaying the vote until 2017 — after the next election.
The foremost recommendation that has gone to the government is that a “council of elders” — indigenous and non-indigenous — be established to oversee and crystallise the referendum model for constitutional change.
The new council would be separate from the other inquiries and panels currently reviewing the future of the referendum.
The recommendations of the review panel, chaired by ­former deputy prime minister John ­Anderson, include the ­creation of a timeline for action as soon as possible.
Recognising that poor public awareness and ­extreme views would threaten any referendum held too soon, the review panel canvassed with the government an “outer limit” for the vote of the 50th ­anniversary of the 1967 referendum, the highest “yes” vote in a referendum in Australia’s history…. [The Australian, 12 September 2014]

Scullion also said it was unlikely the referendum would be put to voters in this term of parliament. He said it would be a “very brave” government who injected this issue into its first bid for re-election. [The Guardian, 9 September 2014]

It seems that the Abbott Government intends to allow the current recognition legislation to lapse on 27 March 2015 without there being a timetable for a national referendum or concrete details of any referendum question.

Friday 8 August 2014

Well worth repeating: The Age editorial 'Playing Games With Religion In Schools'


Date August 1, 2014

The ancient book of Ecclesiastes teaches that there is a time and a place for everything. A time to be silent and a time to speak. There is also a time to pray, if that is what is needed. Whether there is a time and place for students to pray during school lunchtimes, however, is a matter that clearly causes some people enormous concern.

After state Education Minister Martin Dixon issued a ministerial direction about the rules and procedures governing the provision of special religious instruction in government schools, a cry erupted among some Christian groups claiming the rules encroach on basic human rights. Opponents of the directive say it amounts to an attack on religious freedom and free speech, and that it is a step towards outright bans on prayer in schools.

Their rhetoric is inflammatory, and their concerns are misplaced. The government is not banning prayer in school. It is not forbidding students to pray at lunchtime, if that is what they want to do with their meal break. It is saying that prayer forums ''cannot be led'' by teachers or other school staff, by parents, volunteers or visitors. Put another way, if there are prayer groups or meetings of student religious clubs during school hours, then they must not take the form of ''instructed'' prayer. That is a world away from imposing draconian curbs on the rights to religious freedom and free speech.

The rationale is simple. Government schools are secular environments and their primary aim is education. It has been that way since the Education Act of 1872 formalised that public education in this state should be free, secular and compulsory. In 1958, the law was amended to provide an exception allowing non-compulsory religious instruction classes to be held within schools, but on certain conditions and only by accredited providers. It should be noted the law does not bar religious instruction classes being held on state school grounds outside school hours.

The 2006 education legislation states that schools must ''not promote any particular religious practice, denomination or sect'', but it nevertheless allows schools to provide classes of special religious instruction during school hours, only by accredited representatives. To allow non-accredited instructors to supervise religious sessions at lunchtime would be to subvert the system entirely. Mr Dixon's directive provides a framework for schools to ensure they are abiding by the law and not inadvertently providing non-accredited religious instruction classes.

The Age has consistently argued that beyond reading, writing and arithmetic, there is room in schools for the study of the various belief systems and for informed and informative discussion about ethical choices. Education about religion should provide students with sound information about belief structures and religious practices that help shape our world, as well as provide historical context to the role played by religion in our world. A byproduct of all that might be greater social awareness and enhanced tolerance of diversity.

That does not, however, justify a state-backed religious agenda in education. A secular school system should not impose proselytising nor actively sponsor it. If religious instruction is to be conducted at all within the secular school environment, then there must be clear boundaries and rules. Where state schools do provide special classes in religious instruction, who teaches it, how, and when it is provided should all be carefully managed.

Nothing bars students from organising their own religious groups at school; they are not impeded in practising their religion at school. Their fundamental rights are preserved. At the same time, the resources and facilities of the state education system must be directed primarily to education for all

Although the directive mentioned in this editorial applies only to Victorian schools, the debate concerning religion in schools is nation-wide.

Saturday 21 June 2014

Australian High Court slaps down Abbott Government yet again


It would appear that the Australian Constitution and the High Court have become the only effective brakes on the policy excesses of the Abbott Government.

Yesterday, it handed down two more judgments that came hard on the heels of its 19 June ruling that the school chaplaincy program funding was unlawful.

Plaintiff S297/2013 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor (PDF 14K) and Plaintiff M150/2013 by his Litigation Guardian Sister Brigid Marie Arthur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor (PDF 14K).

20 June 2014
PLAINTIFF S297/2013 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION & ANOR

[2014] HCA 24

Today the High Court unanimously held that the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection ("the Minister") did not have the power under s 85 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act") to limit the number of protection visas that may be granted in a specified financial year.

The judgment in this matter should be read with the judgment handed down today in the concurrently heard matter Plaintiff M150 of 2013 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] HCA 25. 

The plaintiff is a Pakistani national who entered Australia by sea at Christmas Island in 2012.  He did not have a visa and was, therefore, an unlawful non-citizen within the meaning of the Act.  He made a valid application for a protection visa.  The Refugee Review Tribunal determined that he was a refugee within the meaning of the Refugees Convention, satisfying the criterion for a protection visa under s 36(2)(a) of the Act.  However, he has been neither granted nor refused a protection visa because of an instrument signed by the Minister on 4 March 2014, which purported to determine under s 85 of the Act the maximum number of protection visas that may be granted in the financial year ending 30 June 2014.  That maximum number having been reached, the grant of a protection visa to the plaintiff in this financial year would exceed that limit.

Section 85 of the Act provides that the Minister may, by notice in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, determine the maximum number of visas of a specified class that may be granted in a specified financial year.  Protection visas are a class of visa provided for by s 36.  Under s 65, the Minister has a duty, after considering a valid application for a visa, to grant the visa if satisfied that certain conditions are met and to refuse to grant the visa if not so satisfied.  Section 65A imposes a duty on the Minister to make a decision on protection visa applications within 90 days.

In proceedings initiated in the High Court, the plaintiff claimed that the instrument limiting the number of protection visas which may be granted was invalid and that the Minister was bound to consider and determine his application and grant him a protection visa.  A special case stated questions of law for determination by the Full Court.

The High Court held that the instrument was invalid.  In light of the time limit imposed by s 65A on the determination of protection visa applications, s 85 did not empower the Minister to determine the maximum number of protection visas that may be granted in a financial year.  The Court ordered that the Minister consider and determine the plaintiff's application for a protection visa according to law.
  • This statement is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the High Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Court’s reasons.

Thursday 2 January 2014

The Lies Abbott Tells - Part Eight


The first day of the new year saw Tony Abbott at it again - turning the truth on its head.

THE LIE


I will also start the conversation about a constitutional referendum to recognise the first Australians. This would complete our Constitution rather than change it.   

THE TRUTH    

Despite the mainstream media being encouraged to take a position that Abbott is 'reviving' the push for recognition and reporting that the Government has promised to put forward a draft amendment by September but has not set a timeframe for a referendum, the Prime Minister actually has no choice but to begin this so-called conversation in 2014.

Gillard Government legislation, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Act 2013 (assented to on 27 March 2013 and administered by Prime Minister and Cabinet), requires the Abbott Government to review constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, consider proposals for constitutional change and identify those proposals most likely to obtain the support of the Australian people - commencing this process no later than 26 March 2014 and completing it no later than September 2014.

Sections 4 and 5 of the Act:

4  Review of support for a referendum to amend the Constitution
             (1)  The Minister must cause a review to commence within 12 months after the commencement of this Act.
             (2)  Those undertaking the review must:
                     (a)  consider the readiness of the Australian public to support a referendum to amend the Constitution to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; and
                     (b)  consider proposals for constitutional change to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples taking into account the work of:
                              (i)  the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; and
                             (ii)  Reconciliation Australia; and
                     (c)  identify which of those proposals would be most likely to obtain the support of the Australian people; and
                     (d)  consider the levels of support for amending the Constitution to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples amongst:
                              (i)  Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; and
                             (ii)  the wider Australian public; and
                            (iii)  the Governments of the States and Territories; and
                     (e)  give the Minister a written report of the review at least 6 months prior to the day this Act ceases to have effect.
             (3)  The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the day the report is given to the Minister.

5  Sunset provision
                   This Act ceases to have effect at the end of 2 years after its commencement.

Note:          The 2 year sunset period in this section will provide Parliament and the Australian people with a date by which to consider further the readiness of Australians to approve a referendum to amend the Constitution to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
                                                                                             
Background

The Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians Final Report was informed by over 3,000 submissions from organisations, groups and individuals.

The following are its principal recommendations:



Sunday 18 August 2013

Federal Election 2013: A noble promise freely given - or is it?


On 11 August 2013 ABC News reported that; He [Tony Abbott] made a first-term commitment to recognise Indigenous Australians in the Constitution, saying the nation's "soul would not be whole" until that happened.

I’m sure that Australian Opposition Leader Tony Abbott meant that statement made on the federal election campaign trail.

However, like many of his utterances it only tells half the story.

What Abbott does not say is that an act of Parliament passed during Julia Gillard’s’ term as Prime Minister obliges the House of Representatives by 12 November 2014 to begin consideration of the question of whether to call a national referendum on recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Australian Constitution and, that this question is then be debated and put to the vote in both the House and the Senate.

As the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Act 2013 had bi-partisan support when it was passed, it is highly likely that a referendum will be called no matter who wins government on 7 September this year.

Whether the Yes vote wins such a national referendum is of course up to the Australian people and hopefully acceptance will prevail that there is a need to legally embed in the Constitution a recognition of the traditional owners of the land past and present and their cultures.  

Saturday 25 February 2012

Reconciliation Australia and you



The people of Page are being invited to join a grassroots campaign to support the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians in the Constitution.

In August last year the Federal Member for Page, Janelle Saffin hosted public consultations in Grafton and Lismore as a member of the panel appointed by the Prime Minister to advise the Government on how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people could be recognised in the Constitution.

Ms Saffin said it was clear from the views raised at the consultations that there was strong support from the local people who came along and their views were reflected in the panel’s report presented to the Prime Minister in January this year.

“At the local consultations held in Grafton and Lismore there was strong support expressed for constitutional recognition. There was debate about what goes in and overwhelming support to get rid of Section 25 (this says that if a State law disqualifies all the people of any race from voting in State elections, then those persons shall not be counted when working out how many seats each State gets in the House of Representatives).

“Some people started saying we want the Rolls Royce model- and I agree- but are happy to start with what we can all come to agreement on.

“Now we are taking the next step towards long-overdue constitutional change with the roll-out of a national community awareness and education campaign. The panel’s work was a great starting point but the next step is to harness the goodwill and sense of fairness of the Australian people to build the momentum for change,” Ms Saffin said.

Ms Saffin said Reconciliation Australia, the peak national organisation building and promoting reconciliation across the country, had been appointed to lead the national movement for change.

“The Reconciliation Australia campaign will build on the positive mood for change that was evident at the hundreds of meetings and consultations that panel members held across the country, including here in my seat of Page on the Northern Rivers. This support came from a range of organisations, community groups and individuals and now we are looking forward to working with them to see this through to a successful referendum.”

“We want people to spread the message on how important it is for a modern, forward-looking country like Australia to recognise the history, cultures, art and languages of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians.

“They can do this by talking about it to their families and friends, at school, at their workplaces, at their sporting clubs, community meetings and their churches. We need everyone to start thinking and talking about it.

“A good place to start is to visit the website www.youmeunity.org.au to find out more, show your support and see what others are saying about constitutional recognition,” Ms Saffin said.

For further information contact Lee Duncan 0448 158 150

Office of Janelle Saffin MP, Page Electorate, media release on 23 February 2012

Wednesday 10 November 2010

So we're to have a national referendum sometime in the next three years....


Well this is bound to get interesting.
Prime Minister Gillard has just announced a long overdue national referendum on including formal recognition of Aboriginal first peoples in the Australian Constitution.
The trick's going to be how to keep the entire proposition from turning into a prolonged and painful train wreck.
Those sticky-fingered political power brokers need to be penned far away from consultations on any proposed wording of the question being put to the vote.
Because as sure as night follows day they will want to tack other questions onto the ballot paper, with the sole purpose of extending political party power over the federal parliament and the people.
Such a move would almost surely sink any hope of formal recognition.

Tuesday 24 August 2010

It's begun. Liberals attempt to smear Australian Governor-General in hope that state governor will have to decide next federal government


Media Statement 23 August 2010
Click to enlarge

Saturday's federal election vote count was not even finished for the night when the first whispered attempts to discredit Australian Governor-General Quentin Bryce began in an effort to have her stand aside, presumably in favour of NSW Governor Marie Bashir (current holder of dormant commission as Administrator of the Commonwealth), in the event of a hung parliament being confirmed by the Australian Electoral Commission.

Though why the Coalition appears to believe that Governor Bashir would be more amenable to inviting Abbott to form a government is unclear at this point. Perhaps the ease with which she was spooked by tabloid newspaper The Daily Telegraph earlier this year has fostered some hope in Liberal breasts that she might cave under pressure.

While Tony Abbott is keeping his head below the parapet for now, yesterday the art of the sly smear was being practiced by Liberal Party donor and mining magnate Clive Palmer:

MINING magnate and government critic Clive Palmer has questioned the role of Governor-General Quentin Bryce in determining whether Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott is allowed to form a government.
Ms Bryce's daughter Chloe Bryce is married to ALP powerbroker Bill Shorten, who was instrumental in Ms Gillard toppling Kevin Rudd for the prime ministership.
''We need to make sure that the Governor-General is totally impartial,'' Mr Palmer told The Age. ''If the Governor-General finds she can't be impartial, she should stand down and they should get someone else to fulfil that role.''

In response to this and other speculation in the media Government House released this brief statement:

It's almost a given that sometime in the next three weeks Abbott will be at the Court of Disputed Returns and the Federal Court trying to claw back as many seats as he can in order to form government in his own right; but what is also highly probable is that should either Bryce or Bashir issue that all important invitation to Julia Gillard instead of to him, Abbott will go straight to the High Court asking that the decision be overturned and then a constitutional crisis really will be upon us all.

It wouldn't surprise me if Abbott is rather relying on a national cringe at the thought of a prolonged Coalition dummy spit of this kind (argumented by motions of no confidence and 2008-style disruptive antics in the House once Parliament begins another term) when he argues that the return of a Gillard Government would destabilize the political landscape.