Comments on: Some Queensland Libs still having trouble with democracy

By: Sam Tecon

Sam Tecon — Sun, 18 May 2008 18:45:57 +0000

I believe that you are absolutely right, â€œConsent on these matters has to be informedâ€. I also agree that the plebiscite package should include as you said, â€œsubmissions from proponents and opponentsâ€. The Liberal organisation should be pressed heavily on this matter. But I think it should go further. On the basis that the plebiscite has been announced and will be initiated through mail out prior to convention it will be difficult but probably not impossible to get additional information to the membership prior to their vote. I suggest that a second package be mailed. Unless there is some constitutional problem, the second package should include the actual ballot paper as originally proposed plus information that the convention has resolved needs to be sent. This way the membership could not vote without the benefit of the conventions considerations. I also believe once this process is underway, it would be disastrous to try to shut it down, try to amend it or overrule the process at the forthcoming convention. There will be a certain amount of expectation from the Liberal membership that they should have the final say. I donâ€™t believe that most Liberal members would be prepared to delegate their vote on such an important issue once a plebiscite is underway. If the proposed constitutional convention is not constitutional it should be made constitutional. This should be another topic of debate at the forthcoming convention. One way or another, an outcome to these matters needs to be made constitutionally and that will not split the party. The party must ensure that the convention and plebiscite donâ€™t conflict.

By: Graham Young

Graham Young — Sun, 18 May 2008 12:43:24 +0000

Sam, the plebiscite has no power to bind. It’s indicative only. So, if there were some conflict between the two, then convention would prevail.
The benefit of having a debate at convention, and the convention voting is that it would provide guidance to people voting in the plebiscite. The problem with the plebiscite is that there will be only one proposition put to them, and it won’t be put in context. It will be quite contrary to the way that every other matter is decided in the party, which is a vote of those present at a meeting after all sides have had a chance put a case. That way you get to see what wrinkles there might be in the proposal, as well as the alternatives.
The constitutional convention shouldn’t be regarded as a fait accompli either. In fact, I’m not sure how it is being conducted legally. To change the Liberal Party’s constitution you have to go through this process:
150 (a) Before convening a Constitution Convention, State
Council shall appoint a Constitution Review
Committee which shall examine the Constitution,
call for submissions from all Members and units of
the Party and submit proposed amendments of the
Constitution to the State Council. State Council
shall submit proposed amendments to the
Constitution Convention for its consideration. The
Agenda to be circulated to delegates at least
fourteen days prior to the Convention;
(b) any proposed amendment to the Constitution must
be submitted to the Constitution Review Committee
not least then sixty days prior to the Constitutional
Convention and reported upon by the Constitution
Review Committee whose report must be circulated
to delegates with the proposed amendments.
This proposed process is just a take-it or leave it one, more akin to a liquidation! So it might very well not be legal.

By: Sam Tecon

Sam Tecon — Sun, 18 May 2008 11:30:30 +0000

If there was a motion at convention while a plebiscite was underway what would happen if their results were conflicting? Say the convention voted against and the plebiscite voted for it. What then? Or if the convention voted against would the plebiscite be stopped or the results not correlated nor published?

By: Temujin

Temujin — Fri, 16 May 2008 22:01:18 +0000

How is the Mugabe reference poor journalism? It is either correct or it isn’t.
Some people seem to have this assumption that “our” system could never become as bad as “their” system. If you start with the assumption that we’re better, then any unfavorable comparison seems unfair. But that’s just because of the blind faith of the people who love our system.
Most tyranny was not introduced on an official “tyranny day”, but was introduced one step at a time — while the people being ruled continued to claim they were free until far too late.
Comparisons with systems we don’t like are an important way to ensure we’re not going down that path.

By: Doug

Doug — Fri, 16 May 2008 15:53:50 +0000

It really doesn’t make sense at all to be debating a motion at Convention on this matter. Already a plan of attack has been outlined which gives those very same delegates a say at the 26 July Constitutional Convention, and furthermore a direct plebiscite of members gives an even greater level of rank and file input.
Sure there is no problem with having an open discussion but one resolving a motion would not be helpful. Convention can debate a motion if it wants – if 75% of delegates agree to initiate a motion debate but what more could debating a motion at Convention add to the process? No doubt it is just another avenue for those noisy people to hear the sound of their own voices. The silent majority just wait to use their voting slips.
If delegates do not want a merger to proceed, it’s simple, vote no at the Constitutional Convention. The President has done the right thing in working to bring a concluded proposal for the membership to vote on. If he had caved in to all the squealing going on by the noisy minority this would never have gotten out of the blocks.
There is no refusal of a vote on the future of the Liberal Party because in fact there will be two!
I was against the merger in the start but now I am just going to wait and see what they come up with.
PS The Mugabe reference is poor journalism. We live in a proud democracy.