Prime Minister Rudd has been imploring the states to “act in the national interest and in the interests of working families …” That’s his good cop. As bad cop, he’s threatening a referendum on health reform. Yes, we all remember how fond the public are of those.
A referendum. Really?
Let’s consult the Herald Sun‘s latest “Matters of State” — a study guide (or “VCE study boost”) for Year 12 students. Today’s subject: legal studies. The topic — a possible referendum. Jules Aldous, from Shelford Girls’ Grammar, writes:
If the referendum relates to a complex issue, voters may not understand it and vote against it.
Alternatively, voters may not understand the actual referendum process. In either case, a no may be cast to maintain the status quo.
It is also suggested that some voters are sceptical of politicians who want to change our Constitution. These voters may perceive that the referendum is a way for politicians to increase their power.
The Government has stated that if they hold a referendum, it will be either before or at the next election.
The timing of a referendum may influence its success. Some suggest that referendums held at the same time as an election generate less interest.
Voters may confuse the purpose of a referendum with the purpose of a vote in an election. Some voters will vote according to the views of their political party.
This is an issue to follow throughout the year and it’s important to read newspaper reports.
Wise words for any student of politics.
“Health” is a hospital case, and most want something done about it.
Several state governments are as popular as proverbial lepers.
And “Important to read newspaper reports”? Whose side is Rupert on?
Wise words maybe, but not entirely correct.
In the body of the article the author wrote that one of the difficulties in securing changes to the constitution was that both Houses of Parliament have to agree to the proposed ‘Bill to Amend the Constitution’ before it is sent to the governor-general.
This is not true. Section 128 makes it quite clear that if one house fails to pass the proposal (or passes it with unacceptable amendments) that the bill can be reintroduced after 3 months and, if it is rejected a second time, can be sent straight to the governor-general as if it had been passed by both houses, who would then put it to the people. There are historical precedents for this.
However – and it is a big however – the support of the executive would probably be necessary, if the decision to present a proposal to the public at a referendum is a matter on which the GG acts on the advice of the Federal Executive Council. Obviously, if a hostile Senate proposes a measure it would be a simple matter for the Prime Minister to advise the GG to reject the proposal. The more interesting question is whether the GG has to follow this advice.
There was also a strange omission of any discussion over the power of the Commonwealth to legislate for “…health and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription)…” but, yes, it doesn’t say hospitals.