Latest news with #ReferendumAct
Sky News AU
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Sky News AU
Even a broad church has boundaries: Sussan Ley, Ted O'Brien's openly republican views at odds with the values the Liberal Party was founded upon
The Liberal Party now has two new leaders, Sussan Ley and Ted O'Brien. Until evidence arises to the contrary, both can be regarded as staunch advocates for an Australian republic – and that's of some consequence. Ley has featured in advertising material for the Australian Republic Movement, published in 2022. In the same year – during the same month as our late Queen's death, no less – she took it upon herself to pen an op-ed for the Daily Mail in which she encouraged republicans' agenda, writing, 'I know Australia is big enough and old enough to have a fresh look at this debate.' O'Brien served as Chairman of the Australian Republic Movement from 2005 to 2007. In my even-more youthful years, and with fervour to match, I wrote extensively on how it is 'oxymoronic' for one to be a republican Liberal politician. In 1954, to celebrate its tenth anniversary, Robert Menzies crystalised the Liberal Party's doctrinal beliefs in his 'We Believe' propositions; these are readily available online. Those propositions, I contend, are listed hierarchically; that is, from the first follows the second, from the second follows the third, and so on. Thus, that the 'We Believe' propositions begin like this should be of no surprise: 'We believe in the Crown as the enduring embodiment of our national unity and as the symbol of that unity and as the symbol of that other unity that exists between all nations of the British Commonwealth.' At the apex of the Australian Constitution is the Crown; from the Crown descends our nation's democratic, legislative and judicial authority, as well as much, much else. I wonder what might Menzies make of the fact that republicans are, yet again, at the Liberal Party's helm? Regardless, if republicanism lurks in Ley's and O'Brien's hearts, so be it; in our free country, they are entitled to their private views – even if those views are totally at odds with their party's values. What cannot be allowed to happen, however, is this: that the Liberal Party of Australia becomes a complicit mechanism in Labor's never-tiring agenda to bring about an Australian republic. During its last term, this agenda led the Albanese Government to commit shameless acts, such as instituting the first-ever Assistant Minister for the Republic, a Minister of the Crown tasked with, incredibly, removing the Crown. In fact, nearly every constitutional and civic policy decision made during Anthony Albanese's prime ministership – the Voice, the changes to the Referendum Act's machinery provisions, the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill, and the removal of the Queen's effigy from our five-dollar note – has been in aid of republicanism. As succinctly as I can, I'll explain why. Following defeat in the 1999 republic referendum, Yes campaigners drew what they continue to believe a critical conclusion: that it is virtually impossible to affect constitutional change in Australia if such change is presented too complexly. In contrast, whereas the 1999 referendum leant too heavily upon technical legal argument, its 2023 successor threw technical argument to the wind, relying instead upon the weaponisation of voters' emotions. Both strategies caused confusion, sowed fear and ended in defeat. Be assured, that had the Voice carried, we'd have been catapulted straight into another republic debate, argued in the same fashion as the Voice, and we'd have voted in a second republic referendum this year. After all, Labor was desperately hoping its President of Australia would be inaugurated in 2025, to coincide with the fiftieth anniversary of Gough Whitlam's dismissal. And so, last year, our just-elected prime minister told the Guardian: 'Referendums are hard to win in this country, and we've seen, I think, that all it takes is opposition.' It is this democratic right, the right to oppose, that serves as the central bulwark against republicans' ambitions. In our Commonwealth parliament, that right has, for the most part, been loyally championed by the Coalition's senior partner, the Liberal Party, one founded upon the time-tested value that constitutional monarchy is the most stable system of government yet devised. It is bipartisan parliamentary support for a republic, then, that most endangers the Crown's continuity. The Australian Monarchist League, which comprises many grassroots Liberals, is committed to keeping close watch over the constitutional dealings of Australia's federal representatives. I'll conclude with this: John Howard was right to describe the Liberal Party as a 'broad church'. But churches have roofs, and they have walls. The Liberal Party cannot continue constructing outhouse after outhouse to accommodate illiberal, anti-Menzian policies. To offer any formal support to a republic would be the party's most wayward endeavour yet. Alexander Voltz is a composer. As well as contributing to he is the founding Music Editor of Quadrant, and writes also for The Spectator Australia. He directed The Queen's Platinum Jubilee Concert, Australia's largest musical tribute during the Platinum Jubilee of Elizabeth II. His music has been performed across the country and abroad.
Edmonton Journal
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Edmonton Journal
Braid: Will 'yes' vote on independence force Premier Smith to act? She won't say
Article content The question to Premier Danielle Smith was as blunt as I could make it. Article content Article content If Albertans vote 'yes' to separation in a referendum, would she proceed to pull Alberta out of Canada? The premier did not say no. Neither did she say yes. 'Until I see an actual question with 177,000 signatures of Albertans that are supportive of it, it's difficult for me to know what that looks like,' she said at Tuesday's news conference. Article content 'I did say (Monday) in my commentary that I will respect the wishes of Albertans, and at the moment, they're a bit undefined about what it is Albertans want to do. 'I think if an election were held today, it (Alberta independence) would get about 30 per cent support. 'So that's why I want to make sure that those numbers do not get higher and . . . end up going lower because we're successful in negotiating a new arrangement with Canada.' Article content Smith is setting up the referendum idea as a pressure valve for angry Albertans. She'll let them get signatures while she tries to get a deal with Prime Minister Mark Carney. Her personal view is clear — she's no separatist, yet. She seems to follow the Free Alberta Strategy that sees independence as a last resort. But her referendum vote could be the best thing that ever happened to Alberta separatism. The signature drive will motivate our separatists to organize, raise money and work hard. They'll pick up sympathizers along the way. They have Smith's full approval to give it a try. Article content Article content Postmedia's Rahim Mohamed asked a crucial question — would she allow her MLAs and ministers to campaign for one side or the other in a referendum campaign? Smith said the UCP was founded in 2017 with a declaration of 'loyalty to a united Canada and a commitment for Alberta to be a leader in the Canadian Federation.' That suggests campaigning for separatism would be disloyal to the party and maybe cause for ejection from caucus. But, again, Smith didn't say MLAs should be neutral. 'I'm not going to be demonizing anybody who may have a different view than me,' she said at one point. 'All I can do is try to convince people that my view is right, that it's worth giving it a try, it's worth doing the negotiation and it's worth trying to find some way for the federal government to compromise.' Article content Red Deer MLA Jason Stephan has already said he wants this referendum to happen, and he's no fan of today's Canada. The Brexit debate in the U.K. ripped apart the ruling Conservative Party. Division brought four prime ministers in successive short-term rises and falls. Alberta's Referendum Act does not generally make a referendum vote binding on the government, but makes exceptions for some constitutional matters. It's hard to imagine a more obvious constitutional issue than a province leaving Canada. First Nations are already in a fury over possible violations to their constitutional rights. Smith will have to be very clear on that question before any vote is held. Would this be a binding vote, or just another of the UCP's ingenious ways to let people blow off steam? The UCP had a fair deal panel under former Premier Jason Kenney. Now there will be an Alberta Next panel. Smith herself will be out there asking people what they want Alberta to look like in the future. Article content She casually throws in provocative statements like the following: 'There's quite a bit of law internationally that says that if you are a separate nation, one nation cannot landlock another. 'It's sort of a given that it is an inappropriate use of power to prevent a jurisdiction from being able to get its resources to market.' She was talking in the context of corridors within Canada, but suddenly added a whiff of separatism. Carney was asked about this Alberta referendum after his meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump in Washington. 'Canada is stronger when we work together,' said the ex-Edmontonian. 'As an Albertan, I firmly believe that you can always ask the question, but I know what I would respond, clearly.' In Alberta, something else is clear. We're heading for a vote that will raise passions to heights unseen since the 1980s. Latest National Stories
Cision Canada
06-05-2025
- Politics
- Cision Canada
Commissioner of Canada Elections announces six administrative monetary penalties and an undertaking for Canada Elections Act violations
GATINEAU, QC, May 6, 2025 /CNW/ - The Commissioner of Canada Elections (CCE), Caroline J. Simard, announced today the publication of six administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) and an undertaking to address violations under the Canada Elections Act (the Act). To maintain transparency, and as required by the Act, summaries of AMPs are published on the CCE's website. Notices of violation imposing AMPs were issued to: An official agent for a candidate during the 43 rd federal general election who failed to provide the campaign's financial returns within the required deadline. Two official agents for candidates during the 44 th federal general election who failed to dispose of the campaign's surplus within 60 days. An official agent during the 2019 federal general election who failed to comply with a term and condition of an undertaking they had signed with the Office of the CCE. Two individuals who voted twice in the same electoral district during the 2021 federal general election. The AMPs were reviewed by the Chief Electoral Officer and the amount was confirmed. AMPs are administrative tools that the Commissioner can use to address violations under the Act. They aim to promote compliance with the Act. More information about AMPs can be found in the CCE's Policy for the Administrative Monetary Penalty Regime. An undertaking is a pledge made by a person or entity that did not comply with a requirement of the Act and accepted by the Commissioner. Undertakings aim to ensure compliance with the Act. The CCE is responsible for ensuring compliance with, and enforcement of, the Act and the Referendum Act. The Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections is distinct from Elections Canada and carries out a different mandate. For complaints and non-media-related enquiries, please use our online form.
Sky News AU
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Sky News AU
Voting drunk allowed, bribing others not: What Australians can and can't do in the polling booth on election day
With this year's federal election now only days away, the AEC is warning voters what they can and can't do at the polling booth - and what could land them in prison. There are things the Australian Electoral Commission doesn't prohibit, including allowing people to be intoxicated when they their vote, or taking a picture of their ballot paper. However, bribery, interfering with political liberty and leaving a voting recommendation for the next person are firmly in the don't-do category. What can lead to prison time The AEC's website lists a number of penalties surrounding voting that if committed, could lead to a term of imprisonment. Anyone who intentionally casts more than one vote in the same election can face a prison sentence of up to 12 months and a fine of up to $19,800. Bribing someone else to vote in a particular way can result in a two-year prison sentence, and hindering or interfering with another person's right to vote can land the offender in jail for three years. Owners or employees of hospitals or nursing homes cannot influence the vote of a patient or resident and can be sent to prison for six months if found guilty. Leaving the next person to enter the polling booth a voting recommendation is not an imprisonable offence but is still outlawed under the Referendum Act. What voters can do legally Voters are allowed to use their mobile phones in the booths and 'generally speaking' can even take a photo of their own ballot paper, the AEC confirmed to Sky News. Though Australia has secret ballot system, an AEC spokesperson said it is matter for individuals as to whether they want to give up that secrecy. 'Generally speaking it's fine to take a sneaky shot of your own ballot paper if you want to post it to social media... or to take a quick selfie so long as you don't include other voters or AEC staff in the shot,' the spokesperson said. Voters also can't film other's votes or the electoral roll and certified lists, and it can be an offence to film inside a polling place without the permission of the officer in charge. There are no specific rules barring people from voting intoxicated, but there won't be any alcohol sold under the same roof as polling stations. 'We do have a rule in the Electoral Act that requires any licensed premises we use as a polling place to not sell alcohol in the same part of the building in which polling is happening,' the AEC spokesperson said. Pets are also OK for voters to bring with them, but the electoral commission asks that people leave their pets tied up outside a polling place where possible. "Assistance animals are of course allowed inside a polling place as they are professionals doing an important job," the spokesperson said. Rules also apply to staff at the booths, and with election day only just around the corner, Housing Minister Clare O'Neil has been heavily scrutinised over discussions to recruit volunteers associated with a CCP-linked organisation. The Australian reported that ten individuals associated with a group linked to Beijing's influence operations agency were being recruited to staff the minister's polling booths on election day.
Korea Herald
07-04-2025
- Politics
- Korea Herald
Will South Korea amend its Constitution?
People Power Party on board with speaker's proposal; Democratic Party Chair Rep. Lee Jae-myung reluctant The People Power Party on Monday backed National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik's proposal to hold a referendum on amending Constitution to reduce the president's power on the same day as the early presidential election, highly likely slated for June 3. Rep. Kwon Young-se, the People Power party's leader, said the public consensus on reforming the country's power structure was ripe in the wake of the impeachment crisis. "We have witnessed the risks of a president having all the powers of the state," Kwon said, alluding to Yoon Suk Yeol's imposition of martial law in December last year. The Democratic Party of Korea, on the other hand, urged caution, saying that ending the insurrection started by the ousted president should be the first priority. Rep. Lee Jae-myung, Democratic Party chair and the presidential frontrunner, said, however, that while amending the Constitution and developing democracy is important, "putting an end to Yoon Suk Yeol's insurrection should come first." "I think we all recognize the necessity of having a revised Constitution. But right now, nothing takes precedence over the task of preventing Yoon's bid to destroy democracy," Lee said. Lee also pointed out that for the proposed referendum on the constitutional amendment to take place in two months, the necessary preparations couldn't be completed in time. "It would be physically impossible to revise the Referendum Act to allow early voting, which we will need to get as many to vote as possible," he said. Speaker Woo Won-shik held a press conference on Sunday, two days after Yoon was removed from office, and called for an amendment to the Constitution to reduce the president's term, among other steps to keep executive power in check. Under the Constitution, which was last revised in 1987, presidents can hold office for a single term of five years only. Woo's proposal would let presidents serve for four years, allowing them to be reelected once for a second four-year term. Deputy Speaker Rep. Joo Ho-young of the People Power Party came to the speaker's defense on Monday, saying that a constitutional amendment was the "demand of the times." Among the presidential candidates, the People Power Party's Hong Joon-pyo, the mayor of conservative stronghold Daegu, has consented to the constitutional amendment, but in a way that targets the Constitutional Court itself. Hong, who had run for president in 2017, said the Constitutional Court needed to be abolished and that the Supreme Court should instead get a separate department for giving rulings on constitutionality. This message from Hong was seen as a bid to court hard-line Yoon supporters, discontent with the Constitutional Court's decision on Friday that upheld the ex-president's impeachment for his martial law declaration. A People Power Party lawmaker on the Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee, the Democratic Party, thinking it has a better chance at winning the coming election, might be less willing to accept a constitutional amendment that would take away some of the president's powers. "Lee Jae-myung himself has spoken on the need for constitutional reform several times in the past. But now with the presidency in sight, he would be less willing to embrace a reform plan that could limit his powers if he is elected," the lawmaker said.
