Queensland for many years was dominated by hegemonic reigns of power by major parties. The Labor Party held power for forty-four years and then the nationals for twenty-six years. During these years the major parties manipulated the electoral process to ensure their dominance. Queensland is unique in having dissolved the upper house, done in 1922 by a Labor suicide squad. The unicameral form lessens review of Executive power and this also helped the hegemony of the parties that maintained power.

In 2001, Queensland enacted a new constitution. This formalises the many acts that could be argued to make up the Queensland constitution into one document. Like many modern Westminster constitutions it formally mentions the Premier and Executive Council, but leaves the Governor's reserve powers as implied. It also contains the monarch and has no Bill of Rights. As a result the constitution cannot be looked on as innovative nor advancing Australian government form.

History

Queensland politics in the twentieth century was dominated by periods of extreme party hegemony - mainly through the manipulation of the electoral process. Contributing to this hegemony is the reality the Queensland has been somewhat unique in maintaining three major parties. In federal politics and other states the anti-labor parties have combined into a coalition.

Queensland boasted the world's first Labor government in 1899. This government lasted seven days until the conservative factions banded together to form a government. When Labor finally gained power again in 1915, it managed to hold onto government until 1957, despite one three year hiccup. After such a long period of Labor hegemony, the National Party (Country Party) held onto power from 1957 until 1989.

This extremely long period of party dominance meant that Labor and the Nationals were able to get away with abuses of state power, discrimination of minorities and little care for civil or political rights. While Labor was in power it manipulated public works to ensure its dominance. Swinging seats were bought with new public work projects, and then Labor would go in and unionise the workers, helping to guarantee voters to secure the seat.

Queensland also produces the One Nation party. This was a result of the long hegemony of the Nationals. As the party focused more and more of its interests on Brisbane and the coastal urban regions it alienated the voters in rural Queensland. Pauline Hanson's populist - if repugnant - message was successful in gaining twenty three percent of first preference vote in 1998. Enough to gain eleven legislative members.

One Nation has since imploded, partly through internal dissension, partly because the federal Liberal Party co-opted its xenophobic policies in the 2001 federal election. One Nation was also targeted by the two major parties, Tony Abbott in particular raising $100,000 in a slush fund to support prosecution of One Nation in the courts .

Enfranchisement

The Pastoralists dominated from 1860 until Labor took power in 1915. Initially, only males above the age of twenty-one, with residential qualifications and British subjects were able to vote. Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders that could meet the property qualification were able to vote. In 1907 women were enfranchised.

Like the Commonwealth and NSW electoral innovations, they were implemented by the dominant party to further ensure their majority. Queensland electoral changes were also done for partisan advantage. In 1892 optional preference voting was implemented by conservatives in 1892 to try and protect the divided conservative parties from Labor. Compulsory voting was introduced in 1914 by the Liberal Government.

Labor maintained the preference system until their vote began to wane in the 1940s. Consequently they legislated "first past the post" to take advantage of the non-unified anti-labor parties. Ironically when the Labor Party split into the ALP and Queensland Labor, mimicking the federal Labor split, the first past the post system worked against them.

Labor also implemented malapportionment in 1949 with the zonal system. This remained in various forms until 1991. Labor was suffering less than fifty percent voter support and tried to weight the electorates toward provincial towns and mining areas. The zonal system was modified by the Nationals when they won power, changing it in 1958, 1971 and 1985.

The manipulation of the electoral system in Queensland led to the major party at the time being advantaged. The two large blocks of political hegemony are testament to that. The electoral system helped skew the will of the people, often significantly so. In 1976, Labor achieved thirty-six percent of the vote, but only achieved thirteen percent of the seats in the Legislative Assembly.

The Fitzgerald Inquiry focused on the issue of electoral reform, and optional preference voting was returned in 1992.

Unicameral Parliament

For a long time, the abolition of an upper house in government was a stated Labor party platform. Only in Queensland was this policy successful. In 1917, Premier Ryan put a referendum to the people to abolish the Legislative Council. The referendum failed. Later in 1922, Premier Theodore took advantage of an absent Governor to put in a "suicide squad" in the Legislative Council. A Labor member of the Legislative Council was made Lieutenant-General - and he quickly added fourteen new members to the upper house. They then passed Theodore's legislation to abolish the upper house.

The Country Party supported the legislation, as the Legislative Council contained appointed members. The Country Party was seeking to implement an elected Legislative Council. Unfortunately, no implementation to replace the abolished house was considered. To entrench the unicameral nature of Queensland government, in 1934, Labor enacted legislation requiring a referendum to re-establish the Legislative Council.

Without a house of review, Queensland has undoubtedly suffered at the abuses of Executive power.

Constitution

In 1867 Queensland passed the "Constitution Act". Wanna writes that until the new Constitution , there were twenty-seven statutes that can be considered an informal constitution. Some of these included;

• Constitution Act 1867
• Legislative Assembly Act 1867
• Constitution Act Amendment Act 1890
• Constitution Act Amendment Act 1896
• Officials in Parliament Act 1896
• Constitution Act Amendment Act 1922
• Constitution Act Amendment Act 1934
• Constitution (Office of Governor Act) 1987
• Parliamentary Papers Act 1992
• Parliamentary Committees Act 1995

Other than the legislation relating to entrenchment (ie requiring a referendum to change), all these acts have been repealed with the enacting of the "Constitution Act of Queensland 2001". This makes the Queensland Constitution an unclean read, it cannot be absorbed in one sitting without referring to external legislative acts.

Despite describing a unicameral parliament, the Queensland constitution is the most modern description of a Westminster system. Like other more modern Westminster constitutions, the Queensland constitution describes the Executive Council formally. The Queensland constitution also refers to the "Sovereign" - despite being written in 2001, Queensland was unable to purge the monarchy from the constitution, nor make the Governor the highest executive authority in the state.

An unusual aspect of the Queensland constitution is that it contains a chapter on local government. I am not sure of the historical reason or responsibility behind this addition.

Governor

Like all Westminster systems, the Executive is so polluted by the embedding of the Executive Council in the Legislative that the Governor's responsibilities are often implied and up to the Governor acting on the moment. These are the infamous "reserve powers". Queensland has been no different and reliant upon Governors exercising responsible and rational judgement.

In 1987 Governor Walter Campbell refused to dismiss the ministry at the behest of Joh Bjelke-Peterson. Joh wanted the dissidents in his party out of his way and sought the power of the Governor to do it. Campbell asked Mike Ahern if he could form a government - Ahern could. Governor Peter Arnison also refused to intervene when the Attorney General had a vote of no-confidence against him; this was despite the Governor having the constitutional authority to remove governments and ignore advice from the Premier.

Even with the formality of a single constitution, the reserve powers of the Governor are still implied. Despite the constitutional allowing the Governor to dissolve an Assembly, it doesn't explicitly require it to be at the advice of the Premier or when an election is due. This is in Chapter 2, section 15;

15 Summoning, proroguing and dissolving the Legislative Assembly

(1) The Governor may summon the Legislative Assembly in the Sovereign's name by instrument under the Public Seal of the State.

(2) The Governor may prorogue or dissolve the Legislative Assembly by proclamation or otherwise whenever the Governor considers it expedient.

The Governor as head of the Executive Council can change the times and place that the Assembly meets and sits. The constitution requires a minimum for the Assembly to meet though - a protection against the Governor usurping power by not having the Assembly sit - the Assembly must sit at least twice a year and with a maximum of six months inbetween sitting.

The constitution contains some formal language on the Governor accepting the advice of the Executive Council. This is contained in Chapter 3, section 27;

The Governor in Council is the Governor acting with the advice of Executive Council.

In addition to the Governor's responsibility to the Assembly and Executive Council, the Governor is able to pardon people.

Legislative Assembly

The constitution maintains the existing status-quo of a unicameral parliament. The number of members is set to eighty-nine, and requires that the members be elected by eligible voters. The constitution also defines that there be one Assembly member to each electoral district. While these are defined by the constitution, it can be modified by a parliamentary act.

There is also language to protect the Assembly being dissolved by the Governor if the current monarch's reign ends. This is contained in Chapter 2 section 17;

If the Sovereign's reign ends, the Legislative Assembly, as constituted immediately before the end of the reign, continues in existence, subject to dissolution under section 15(2), for as long as it would have continued if the Sovereign's reign had not ended.

This recognizes the arbitrary nature of succession in the monarch. While elections are rhythmic, a new monarch is based upon the death of the existing monarch. I fail to understand why Queensland maintained a link to the monarch in the constitution. Even with the Westminster system, the governor can be written into the constitution without the need to have their power coming from the monarch.

Executive Council

In the constitution, a member of the Executive Council cannot be a Parliamentary Secretary. The Executive Council contains a Cabinet led by the Premier and containing ministers of the state. The Governor appoints the ministers of the Cabinet, but at the advice of the Premier. Both the Governor and Premier can have a minister act for another minister. A Premier cannot have a minister perform another ministers function for more than fourteen days. The constitution demands that there be an Executive Council, this is contained in Chapter 4 section 48;

(1) There must be an Executive Council for the State.

(2) Executive Council consists of the persons appointed as members of the Executive Council by the Governor by instrument under the Public Seal of the State.

The way out is to resign from the Executive Council, or be removed by the Governor. The Governor is the formally the head of the Executive Council, even though the power of the Executive Council is in the Premier, who advises the Governor.

Power of the State

The constitution contains a chapter on the power of the state. From the title, it might be construed that this chapter represents limits on the state's power, but instead it allows the state to act in different ways, such as a commercial entity. The Queensland constitution has no bill of rights in it, but does explicitly allow the state to enter into contracts;

51 Powers of the State

(1) The Executive Government of the State of Queensland (the "State") has all the powers, and the legal capacity, of an individual.

(2) The State may exercise its powers - (a) inside and outside Queensland; and (b) inside and outside Australia.

(3) This part does not limit the State's powers.

I am not sure about allowing the state to have the legal status of an individual. In the United States, corporations have the same rights as individuals. I am not certain that this is a good thing, a government, like a corporation, is a legal construct. What would the state being an individual entail? That is has freedom of speech? Privacy protection? It can be sued? The state can go bankrupt? The state has political rights?

I do not trust government, or those that wield the power of the state, I would prefer that the constitution allow the state to enter into binding contracts - and if necessary run commercial activities - but not contain language that it has the legal capacity or rights of an individual. I just don't trust the government that far, no matter how convenient it is for the government.

Judicial

The constitution specifies that there must be a Supreme Court of Queensland and a District Court of Queensland. The Supreme Court is the highest court in Queensland and subject to the Commonwealth Constitution. I could not determine exactly who appoints judges, it appears that the Governor does, but there is no explicit mention in the constitution if it comes from the advice of the Assembly or not.

Judges can hold their position indefinitely, but have the option of retiring or getting kicked out for bad behaviour or incapacity. The removal due to bad behaviour must come through the authority of the Legislative Assembly after accepting the results of a tribunal.

Conclusion

Despite the Queensland form of government being a unicameral parliament, given that the constitution was ratified in 2001, you would expect that the Queensland Constitution would be the authoritative word on the Westminster system. This does not seem to be the case. Like many more modern constitutions that model the Westminster it mentions the Premier and the Executive Council. The Premier does not have their powers defined explicitly, nor is there great detail in the Executive Council. More time is spent on protecting against an unexpected change in the monarch.

The Queensland Constitution also suffers from having many entrenched components from previous acts. This makes it a difficult and chopped up read. The Commonwealth constitution is superior in this respect - despite being a weak wet noodle of a constitution - in that it is all contained in the one document. I am also dissappointed in the Queensland constitution in that it maintained the monarch and all the vagaries of the Governor's reserve powers. There is also no Bill of Rights contained within it.

This constitution was a bit dissappointing as it contains no innovations. It is good that the Executive Council and Premier is formally recognized, but this is more a consolidation of the previous acts than any advance in constitutional drafting and enactment.

cam

A constant topic on South Sea Republic is the balance and separation of powers in the Westminster system of government. As Joh showed when being quizzed by Michael Forde, he had absolutely no idea what the separation of powers was, is, or even meant. A unicameral parliament in the Westminster style of government has even fewer checks and balances on Executive power than a bicameral parliament. Joh flourished in the unicameral system.

The Transcript

The wonderful display of executive ignorance used to be on the web, but unfortunately disappeared. Thankfully Bryan Palmer's excellent website on Australian politics preserved the interplay between Forde and Bjelke-Petersen at the Fitzgerald Inquiry into the Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct;

Michael Forde: What do you understand by the doctrine of the separation of powers under the Westminster system?

Sir Joh Bjelke Petersen: The Westminster system? The stock?

Forde: The doctrine of the separation of powers under the Westminster system?

Bjelke Petersen: No, I don't quite know what you're driving at. The document?

Forde: No, I'll say it again. What do you understand by the doctrine of the separation of powers under the Westminster system?

Bjelke Petersen: I don't know which doctrine you refer to.

Forde: There is only one doctrine of the separation of powers.

Bjelke Petersen: I believe in it very strongly, and despite what you may say, I believe that we do have a great responsibility to the people who elect us to government. And that's to maintain their freedom and their rights, and I did that - sought to do it - always.

Forde: I'm sure you're trying to be responsive to the question, but the question related to the doctrine of the separation of powers or the principles -

Bjelke Petersen: Between the Government and the - Is it?

Forde:No, you tell me what you understand.

Bjelke Petersen: Well, the separation of the doctrine that you refer to, in relation to where the Government stands, and the rest of the community stands, or where the rest of the instruments of Government stand. Is that what - ?

Forde:No.

Bjelke Petersen: Well you tell me. And I'll tell you whether you're right or not. Don't you know?

Such stunning ignorance for one who held so much power.

Unicameral Parliament

I covered the Queensland system of government in the article; Focus on Queensland. The system of parliament is unicameral in Queensland. This means there is no upper house, only a Legislative Assembly. Both the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territories also have unicameral parliaments, though the ACT has the Governor-General who can act/impose on the territory's self-government.

Queensland originally had a bicameral parliament, with a Legislative Council until Labor sent in a suicide squad in 1922 and managed to dissolve the Legislative Council. Queensland had no Governor at the time, and a Labor member of the Legislative Council was made Lieutenant-Governor - quickly adding fourteen new members to the Council - enabling legislation through to abolish the upper house.

The real Executive power in the Westminster system is contained in the Executive Cabinet. This is a group of senior elected officials, led by the Prime Minister or Premier, who advise the Governor-General or Governor on government policy. Originally the Westminster system was a British hack to remove the political power of the monarch, while maintaining their ceremonial authority.

Consequently there is no clean separation of Executive and Legislative power. The Executive power is the ability to implement and enforce a law. The Legislative power is the ability to create legislation that can be implemented. In the American Presidential system, the President cannot make a law, and Congress cannot enforce a law. In the Westminster system of government the Prime Minister or Premier control the arms of government that both make laws and enforce those laws.

Tyranny; Written, Funded and Enforced

The fear is that a Prime Minister can make a tyrannous law, fund it, and then enforce that law. One of the reasons for a bicameral parliament is to act as a moderate brake on the Executive power of the Prime Minister or Premier. Ensuring that tyrannous or irresponsible laws are not passed.

Party discipline has weakened this effect - and Australian political parties practise absolute party discipline. No dissent is allowed. Until recently it was not uncommon for American Congressmen and Senators to conscience vote. Not so in Australia.

A feature of the Australian federal system for the last twenty years has been the rise and popularity of the Australian Democrats. They have managed to obtain sufficient numbers in the Senate to act as a conscience and responsible brake on the legislation that has come from the Executive Cabinet. Sadly the popularity of the Australian Democrats is on the wane.

Conclusion

A unicameral parliament is weaker in combating tyranny than a bicameral parliament. Embedded and inherent in the parliamentary system is a skewing of power to the Executive. A unicameral parliament, combined with absolute party discipline has no check on the power of the Executive. This leaves a Premier to not only write tyrranous laws, but also to pass, fund and then enforce them.

Joh Bjelke-Petersen was obviously a despot, who abused the power of government. But the unicameral system of government contains few restraints, minimal checks, and no balance between the arms of government. Politicians prefer this, those in majority government constantly seek absolute power, actively deconstructing any barriers impeding their ability to act as they choose.

It is no surprise when Queensland combined the Bills and Acts in a single Constitution during 2001 that Premier Beattie maintained a unicameral system. Like Joh, and every other politician that has occupied the head of the Executive Cabinet; the less oversight, the less barriers and the fewer checks - the better; in their opinion.

cam

The Queensland Legislative Assembly Hansard is in PDF or XML - but not HTML. Fortunately Firefox renders it ok. In todays sitting, one of the first items was from Beattie on the drought implications. This was used as an excuse to give the State reserve powers to override local councils.

Today I want to talk about drought and water. South-east Queensland is in the grip of the second worst drought on record. If our dams do not receive significant volumes of water in the next six months the region will sink into the worst drought ever. Cabinet yesterday discussed the latest projections on drought and dams. Modelling by South East Queensland Water shows that under the worst case scenario Wivenhoe, Somerset and North Pine dams will strike what is known as `dead' storage levels--that is, five per cent--in December 2006. That would apply without water restrictions; restrictions would push the `dead' levels date to February 2007. Under the more realistic scenario of a repeat of 2004 rainfall patterns, dead levels will hit in October 2007 without water restrictions, or in September 2008 if there are restrictions.

Water management is a feature of the South-East Queensland Regional Plan and program, including upgrading and building new water infrastructure. The data presented to cabinet by the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines, Henry Palaszczuk, shows we must take the lead on water reform in Australia's fastest growing region. With more than 1,000 new residents flocking to the region every week, and climate change a scientific fact, we have no time to waste. As an immediate step, we will accelerate infrastructure developments on the Logan, Albert and Mary Rivers under the South-East Queensland Infrastructure Plan. Regarding Wivenhoe Dam, South-East Queensland Water is well advanced with the upgrade of the spillway which is essential to urban water supplies in south-east Queensland.

I advise the House today that the government has given south-east Queensland a commitment to subsidise the cost of the upgrade and we are honouring this commitment with a payment to assist with the upgrade. We will also bring forward $10 million in subsidies to local governments for water conservation measures, such as pressure reduction and reducing water distribution losses. The government is also examining the feasibility of desalination and exploring water purification and reuse proposals. We will reinforce capital works and maintenance initiatives with more robust laws, cracking down harder on people who repeatedly breach restrictions. We will also fast-track a proposed review of institutional arrangements. This will ensure that the arrangements for ownership and control of dams and water supplies serve the best interests of south-east Queenslanders. The region has 19 dams owned by 10 different organisations.

The south-east Queensland arrangements contrast with those in other states, where government owned corporations, not local councils, manage dams, water treatment, bulk and retail water delivery and waste water services for the entire state or for large metropolitan areas. The south-east Queensland arrangement can lead to baffling anomalies. For instance, in recent years Gold Coast swimmers had to leave the beach without taking a shower, but there was nothing to stop Brisbane people hosing down their driveways. The Gold Coast draws water from Wivenhoe Dam, which is at 38 per cent capacity, while Hinze Dam is more than 80 per cent full. We will work with local governments, other water service providers and the community to make such anomalies a thing of the past.

We will speed up the review of institutional arrangements to ensure everyone has equitable access to water. The stronger laws that we propose will impose tougher penalties on people who flout water restrictions. A domestic water user who breaches water restrictions currently faces an on-the-spot fine of $75 each time they offend. We propose to significantly increase fines, particularly for repeat offenders, and to have much bigger penalties for corporate and industrial offenders. We also propose on-the-spot fines for anyone who takes water from fire fighting systems and hydrants without approval.

Further, we propose to give the state reserve powers to impose restrictions if local governments refuse to do so . I hope the government will never need to apply any of these emergency powers. However, we need to hold them in reserve to ensure that the population and economy of south-east Queensland can continue to flourish with confidence.

My emphasis. Is this a permutation of the Paymaster Pattern , or the "Naked Grab" pattern?

cam

Woah . Forgive my lack of Queensland geography, but that is *the* Whitsundays right?

Who do you have to be mates with for that job? Russ Heinze? Come into my yacht *cough* office and we can chat.

The Pacific, Cunningham and New England Highways are dotted with small areas to overtake, where the road has a short section of dual lanes so slower cars can be overtaken. These are small enough that one vehicle can be overtaken easily, and sometimes a second slower vehicle, but this is made more difficult if the slower vehicles speed up on these sections as they sometimes do. So you gun your car a bit more than usual, running the speed up to get past the vehicles, then once past you let the speed wash off, dropping the speedo to a couple of kilometres above the speed limit before clicking the cruise control to resume your journey. I did just this, and now have a seven hundred dollar fine for it.

In my case as I overtook the second car, a police car rose over the top of the hill at the same time. There was nothing for it, I was speeding, and I pulled over once I saw the police car put its indicator on. I am not a dangerous driver, but recognise that to overtake sometimes it is safer to overtake quickly, get ahead and let the speed drop down.

I am not a perpetual speeder, I dont fly along the highways at 140km/h, in actual fact, from five days of driving from Sydney to Brisbane out into the New England Ranges and back down to Sydney - numerous hours of driving, probably thirty or so - I have been over 120km/h probably 40 seconds in that whole time. So I was absolutely shocked when the speeding fine I got from the Queensland policeman outside of Warwick was seven hundred dollars. This does not fit the crime, nor is it indicative of my driving through NSW and Queensland.

The State Labor governments have manouvred themselves to neuter the Liberal Party's conservative "tough on crime" stance. As a result they often trump and gazump any Liberal posturing on crime by increasing the punitive measures to prove they are in fact, the party that is tough on crime. I am reminded of the scene in Mel Brooks' Spaceballs where Helmet and Sandourz argue over what speed the ship should go in a small inter-play of who has the most power, which eventually leads to a stupid outcome;

Sandurz: Prepare ship for light speed.

Helmet: No, no, no, light speed is too slow.

Sandurz: Light speed, too slow?

Helmet: Yes, we're gonna have to go right to ludicrous speed.

Sandurz: Ludicrous speed? Sir, we've never gone that fast before. I don't know if this ship can take it.

Helmet: What's the matter, Colonel Sandurz, chicken?

Sandurz: Prepare ship, prepare ship for ludicrous speed. Fasten all seat belts, seal all entrances and exits, close all shops in the mall, cancel the 3-ring circus, secure all animals in the zoo...

This is an analogy for how the Labor state governments argue with the Liberal opposition over "tough on crime" measures. The ones who wear it, are the people, in the same way as the crew in Spaceballs wore the stupid escalation to the point beyond reason.

Seven hundred dollars is too much of a fine for what is often an arbitrary enforcement of speeds. It is fiscally cruel, what if I was earning 35K Australian, and had a family of three and a mortgage to support. Such a large fine did not change my behaviour. Before I was fined, I would put the car a couple of kilometres above the speed limit and click the cruise control. After I was fined, I did exactly the same. I also still used the small overtaking areas to overtake slower vehicles. The punitive measures failed.

The seven hundred dollar fine is fiscally cruel, punitively unusual, it is unfair and ultimately unjust. The Queensland government need to reduce their fines for speeding and other traffic offences. Drop them to $100 each. Repeat offenders will be fiscally hurt, if that is the punitive intention, and those that get caught up in the arbitrary nature of traffic enforcement will be less likely to whinge about it for that price. For seven hundred dollars, Queensland will be seeing me again in their court system.

cam

The Australian Capital Territory Treasurer Ted Quinlan and federal Territories Minister Jim Lloyd have rejected a plan to make the ACT an income tax and payroll tax haven . One of the problems facing the States is that Federal government's taxing of income and GST enforce homogeneity on the states. They have little chance to differentiate themselves or to innovate in areas of tax and economic policy. The Federal Government's unitarianism is an impediment.

This proposal has been put forward by the Canberra Institute. This is a think-tank with no internet presence what-so-ever. How can they be so stupid? I am getting annoyed that every article or rafferty's I write now has an opening paragraph which berates the ignorance of politicians, media, think-tanks and other industrial structures when it comes to the internet.

Anyway, I am stuck with trying to make sense, or an opinion, with what the Canberra Times has written on it. Stephen Bartos has put his backing to it. Bartos is a Director at the National Institute of Governance . But without more detail it appears that the plan consists of;

The plan would "declare the ACT and Jervis Bay tax-free advantage areas for both ACT residential PAYE [Pay As You Earn] and company taxpayers. ... The GST, and the Medicare and superannuation guarantee levies would remain from the Commonwealth and the ACT would continue to collect stamp duty, car registration and rates.

That is very innovative, and would probably draw people to Canberra. If the ACT had control over the income tax, they could lay a flat tax of say 5% and use that to fund health and education - they could let the federal government keep any GST revenues in return. But the federal government collecting all income and sales taxes for the states leaves them little room. Jim Lloyd's spokesperson was quoted as saying;

Minister Lloyd notes the idea proposed by the Canberra Institute as interesting but impractical in the context of the national taxation scheme," she said. "The Australian Government administers tax in the interests of all Australians, and the proposed changes would advantage one part of the Australian population over others.

Unitarianism. Canberra sees us as one homogeneous lump. This leaves no room for States to compete for skills, for workers, for families, for businesses or investment through state-based taxation, economic or labour policy. The federal government is inhibiting innovation. Supposedly the Liberals are about competition and free-market policies. They are against it when it dilutes their power at the federal level.

This is the failure of the Australian political system, it enforces federal conformity, entropy, weight and inertia. It is an inhibition to the states innovating and competing against each other.

The United States is a far more diverse federal system with greater state independence than Australia. On Sunday's you see New Yorkers streaming across the Hudson River to the malls in New Jersey. This behaviour is a result of sales tax being lower in New Jersey. New York competes in return by having "no sales tax" days.

Because the GST is leveraged by, and collected by Canberra before being disbursed to the States. The competition New Jersey and New York have over sales tax cannot occur in Australia.

Another example of American states competing against each other is Delaware's incorporation laws ;

More than half a million business entities have their legal home in Delaware including more than 50% of all U.S. publicly-traded companies and 60% of the Fortune 500. Businesses choose Delaware because we provide a complete package of incorporation services including modern and flexible corporate laws, our highly-respected Court of Chancery, a business-friendly State Government, and the customer service oriented Staff of the Delaware Division of Corporations.

This small state has captured a good chunk of the American incorporation market.

One of the few Australian States who has maintained a somewhat independent stance is good ol' Queensland. it still pursues development state policies which are more reminiscent of the autocratic Asian nations. One of the independent policies is the Queensland Fuel Subsidy Scheme . This knocks approximately 8.5c off the cost of each litre of petrol.

I am sure this act of local and regional policy making will meet a green federal challenge in the future where a federal government will use the power of Canberra to force homogeneity on Queensland and bring them into line with every other state. As it is the Federal government is forcing the states into a corner anyway with its own fuel taxes ;

One question remains to be answered. Why has the Commonwealth been allowed to escape criticism regarding underprovision of infrastructure and services, and the problem of traffic congestion?

While state and local governments have nominal responsibility for provision of most infrastructure and services, the Commonwealth controls the main sources of tax revenue. Hence, state and local governments depend on grants that are inadequate to meet their responsibilities.

The Commonwealth refuses to give back more than 16 per cent of fuel tax revenue for road infrastructure, and will not cut the fuel tax rate to make room for congestion pricing by state or local governments. So while special interest groups try to bludgeon the Queensland government into reallocating fuel subsidy monies in accordance with their particular interests, the Commonwealth laughs all the way to the bank.

Big government in Australia has a name - it is the Federal Parliament. It is enforcing control on the states through its taxation policies. This leaves the states homogeneous and incapable of reacting to regional economic pressures. The federal government is acting like a monopoly, extracting rents from the states and inhibiting innovation.

cam

A sketch of a new Queensland constitution. The main change is the revival of the Legislative Council (Upper House) as a jury selected by lot from the population at large. The constitution is divided into two elements, a static constitution changeable only by popular referendum, and a dynamic constitution changeable by a supermajority of both houses of parliament.

The Government of Queensland exists at the behest, and to defend the liberty and well-being of, the people of Queensland.

Only the Parliament may pass laws; an identical text must be approved by the Legislative Assembly, Legislative Council, and the Governor.

The government shall pass no law infringing the rights of the electors, as laid out in this constitution.

The government shall conceal no document from the public for more than 30 years.

1. Definitions

1.1 An elector is any Australian resident, who is also a resident of Queensland, and is 18 or more years old. Voting in elections is compulsory for all electors.

1.2 A person is considered partisan if
    a. They are a member of the Legislative Assembly
    b. They are appointed to a partisan position in the Legislative Council
    c. They are a member of a state or federal registered political party
    d. They have filled any of the above criteria in the last 10 years

2. Mechanics
    2.1 A 50% + 1 majority in any vote is termed a simple majority
    2.2 A two-thirds majority of both the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council is termed a joint supermajority
    2.3 All general elections and referenda must be fair secret ballots with no distinguishing mark inherent in the ballot paper or device
    2.4 All uses of sortition must be fair lotteries where each candidate of n candidates has a 1/n chance of being drawn

3. Legislative Assembly
    3.1 Lower house of parliament
    3.2 Parliamentarians elected from either
        a. single member geographical districts of similar size.
        b. multi-member geographical districts of similar size. Each electorate must
        return at least 20 members, where seats are allocated in proportion to the number
        of votes cast
        c. For either type of electorate,
            c.1 the largest and smallest electorates by population may not differ in size
            by more than 2000 electors.
            c.2 Mainland electorates must be contiguous
            c.3 Electorates may follow well established geographic features, but must
            favour area over circumference, ie, tend towards circles
    3.3 The Premier commands the confidence of the Legislative Assembly
    3.4 Passes bills with a simple majority
    3.5 May contain at most 400 members
    3.6 Members may serve in parliament for at most 25 years total
    3.7 The Assembly must be dissolved and a general election held at most every 5 years
    3.8 Members are dismissed if they are convicted of a criminal offence
    3.9 Members must be electors

4. Legislative Council
    4.1 Small house of review
    4.2 At least 20 members must be appointed by sortition from a pool of citizen nominees
    4.3 At most 3 partisan and 3 non-partisan members may be appointed by the government of the day
    4.4 Passes bills with a simple majority
    4.5 The Legislative Council must be smaller than the Legislative Assembly
    4.6 May not vote on money bills
    4.7 May summon witnesses as before a court of law, and may delegate this power to committees
    4.8 May instruct the Commission of Audit to investigate
    4.9 Members serve for one year, but may choose to extend that service to 3 years
    4.10 Any member may serve in the Legislative Council at most 10 years
    4.11 Members are dismissed if they are
        a. Convicted of a criminal offence
        b. Dismissed by a two-thirds supermajority of the Legislative Council, which
        is then confirmed by a simple majority of the Legislative Assembly
    4.12 Members must be electors

5. Governor (or Referee)
    5.1 Signs bills into law and is Head of State, but is limited to the powers listed immediately below
    5.2 May ask the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of a bill before signing it into law. The Supreme Court must begin consideration of such bills within a year of them being so referred.
    5.3 Summons and dismisses parliament
    5.4 Serves a single term of at most 7 years
    5.5 Is appointed as follows
        a. A joint supermajority approves a list of non-partisan candidates. There must be
        a minimum of three candidates.
        b. The Governor-elect is chosen from this list by sortition.
        c. The Governor-elect becomes Governor at the expiration of the predecessor's term,
        or immediately, if the predecessor has been dismissed or incapacitated
    5.6 May be dismissed by the same mechanism
    5.7 Appoints and dismisses Cabinet ministers following the advice of the Premier or parliament
    5.8 Appoints and dismisses a Premier following the advice of the Legislative Assembly

6. Premier
    6.1 Is a member of the Legislative Assembly
    6.2 Commands the confidence of the Legislative Assembly
    6.3 Is Head of Government
    6.4 Nominates cabinet
    6.5 May not serve beyond 10 years, including previous terms as Premier
        a. A Premier retiring because of this term limit must also retire from the
        Legislative Assembly
        b. A retired Premier may not be appointed to a partisan position on the
        Legislative Council
    6.6 Must be a member of a registered political party

7. Cabinet
    7.1 Appointed from partisan members of either house of parliament
    7.2 Members of cabinet are ministers, and head departments
    7.3 Ministers are responsible to parliament for the actions of their department
    7.4 May be dismissed by joint supermajority

8. Supreme Court
    8.1 Hears serious criminal cases
    8.2 Interprets the state constitution
    8.3 Is non-partisan
    8.4 Is nominated by the Legislative Assembly and confirmed by the Legislative Council; a simple majority of each
    8.5 Members may stay until their death or resignation

9. Commission of Audit
    9.1 May summon witnesses as before a court of law, and may delegate this power to committees
    9.2 Is nominated by the Legislative Assembly and confirmed by the Legislative Council
    9.3 May be prompted by parliament to start an investigation
    9.4 May initiate investigations
    9.5 Must report to parliament and to the people

10. Civil Service
    10.1 The government shall maintain a civil service for the staffing of ministerial departments
    10.2 The Civil service exists to provide impartial and expert advice to ministers and parliament

11. Bill of Rights
    11.1 [left as an exercise for the alert reader]

12. Amending This Document

    12.1 The static constitution may be amended by
        a. A Referendum of all electors:
            a.1 Either:
                a.1.1 A resolution to hold a referendum must be passed by both houses, or
                a.1.2 2% of the electors must sign a petition calling for a referendum
            a.2 For the purpose of the referendum, the state shall be divided into two electorates.
                a.2.1 Mainland electorates must be separated by a single line
                a.2.2 The largest and smallest electorates by population may not differ
                in size by more than 2000 electors.
                a.2.3 The state's largest city must be entirely contained within one of
                the electorates.
                a.2.4 A majority in each electorate must affirm the referendum for the
                constitution to change.

    12.2 The sections above are termed the Static Constitution.

    12.3 The sections below are termed the Dynamic Constitution.

    12.4 The dynamic constitution may be amended by
        a. The mechanism described for changing the static constitution, or
        b. A joint supermajority

[In practise I imagine this being filled out in more detail of the precise algorithms etc used]

13. Terms of parliament
    13.1 Elections for every member of the Legislative Assembly shall be held at most every
    three years.
    13.2 Elections shall be called by the Governor on the advice of the Premier, or if no member
    commands the confidence of the Legislative Assembly

14. Composition
    14.1 The Legislative Assembly shall have one multi-member seat, returning 20 members.

15. Methods of election
    15.1 Elections for single member seats shall be conducted by compulsory preferential voting
    15.2 Elections for multi-member seats shall be conducted by compulsory preferential
    proportional voting

16. Methods of appointment to the Legislative Council
    16.1 Rounds of appointment by sortition to the Legislative Council shall occur at most
    every six months.
    16.2 Members selected to sit in the Legislative Council must pass a brief examination on its
    function, [contained in an appendix. This would be a short 10 question quiz, possibly
    even multi-choice]

17. Reimbursement
    17.1 The Governor, and the members of the Legislative Assembly, shall be paid a salary
    by the state
    17.2 Members of the Legislative Council shall be paid at least the minimum state salary
    drawn by members of the Legislative Assembly

18. Resource Rights
    18.1 [These consist of water, land and other resource rights]

Well, with a Queensland Election coming up, the two (and a half) major parties are competing to see who can propose the most extravagant, inefficient, centrally planned dam in the stupidest places. I was starting to despair of finding anyone pushing a conservative solution that respected property rights and promoted individual water responsibility.  

This morning I found out a party promoting such a policy. The blasted Greens.

For the record, I can't stand half of Bob Brown's antics in the Senate. He's less a gadfly than a class clown. But even on the non-environmental policies they're not spectacularly more communist than the major parties, in what, under our current constitutional settlement, is a naturally tax-and-spend tier of government.

On separating the major parties in the crucial latter preferences, I guess it will have to come down to the stagnation of Labor against the slapstick performance of the Coalition. The Nationals do have at least some decentralising instinct left: they're planning to reinstate local hospital boards (PDF).

As it happens, both the major parties also tuck their policies into PDF documents, that hallmark of bland mass media pap hastily wrapped up for web distribution.

Polls all seem to indicate Beattie will get up again with ease. At least they won't have to repaint the traffic signal box on Edward and Albert St.

Labor has been in government in Queensland since 1998. So any discussion of the Beattie government's policies on water come with the caveat that they have had eight years to put policies in place. The Labor policies on water cover increased water for outdoor use and statewide approaches to infrastructure.

Labor's policy documents;

• Water for garden's, parks and sporting grounds.
• Statewide Water Policy

As mentioned in the intro, the Beattie government has been around for eight years. Their policy document on outdoor water is small and starts with;

Severe drought, climate change and strong population growth are putting unprecedented pressure on Queensland's water supplies.

In response, many local councils have applied restrictions on the outdoor water use.

The problem appears to be drought, climate change and local councils - not the state government's policies in this area. As per a party in government dollar figures are thrown around to get voter buy-in. One of the more curious is the $5 million worth of rebates to buy native plants. Kind of like a state level baby-bonus electoral bribe.

This is an interesting use of money;

$500,000 ($50 per household) over two years for the nursery industry and Queensland Government to develop an education campaign to promote water-wise gardening tips and the use of native and drought-resistant plants;

But I am not convinced of its necessity, most Australians know European plants are maintained at a large cost in water. This is not new knowledge by any means. I also recall the local parks in the eighties going around and planting natives for the same reason. Again it is not knew.

There exists rebates under current policies for water conservation devices;

The Government is already helping Queenslanders to save water indoors by providing rebates on water-saving devices such as rainwater tanks, washing machines, showerheads, dual-flush toilets and greywater devices through the Home WaterWise Rebate Scheme.

The PDF that contains the outdoor water policies doesn't include any information on the proposed dams, though the blurb has;

The Beattie Labor Government is implementing a comprehensive plan to provide additional water and greater water security for Queensland by building new dams, raising existing dams, establishing other water infrastructure with connecting pipelines.

Most of the engineering build-outs and their policies are in the statewide water policy document. Basically it is big dollars chasing big capital works.

• $496 million to a statewide water grid to complement the SEA grid.
• $222 million to raise the dam heights and storage capacities in existing locations.
• $434 million (already) to the Western Corridor Recycled Scheme
• $80 million to a (stop)leakage program in SEQ.

There is no mention of the cost of the proposed dams. The Labor government's approach to water policy is capital works and subsidy. Both expensive propositions. Any conservation is either through rebates of water using devices, including plants, or education schemes.

cam

William Lane was a prominent Republican in Queensland who wrote through a succession of Labor focused newspapers during the 1880s and 1890s. This is the transcript of his One-man-one-vote article which appeared in The Worker in 1891.

William Lane was an Englishman who came to Queensland via Canada and America in 1885. He worked as a journalist before starting The Boomerang. Audrey Oldfield in the Great Republic of the Southern Seas writes that the Boomerang; "preached socialism, white Australia, women's rights and republicanism". Mark McKenna in a Captive Republic writes that Lane's form of Republicanism was not too far different from The Bulletin's;

In certain respects, Lane's vision of a republic was not too dissimilar to that of the Bulletin. Monarchy was seen as a 'remnant of barbarism' and the British sovereign was a 'worthless brainless individual' who did 'nothing but draw a big salary'.

This was familiar rhetoric, but Lane though more critically than the Bulletin or Sydney Republicans. He frequently reminded his readers that a republic would not be a panacea and that Australians had to be just as careful of monopolists in a republic as under a monarchy.

For Lane, a republic was nothing if it did not include the nationalisation of land, women's rights, electoral reform, free education and the expulsion of all alien races. ...

Like Harpur and Lang, Lane saw republicanism as the symbol of a modern enlightened and progressive society.

The Boomerang became the Brisbane Worker before finally becoming The Worker . The latter being notable for helping to establish what would become the Queensland Labor Party. Queensland was a radical hotbed of conflicting politics in the 1880s and 1890s. The Shearer's Strike and its breaking led directly to the modern day Labor Party and National Party. The political environment also left the way open for polemicists such as William Lane and Frederick Vosper. The latter who was charged with treason, and later acquitted, for advocating a Republican revolution during the Shearer's Strike.

In 1893 Lane managed to convince 220 others to sail to Paraguay to establish a utopia. By 1899 Lane was back in New Zealand writing in a conservative manner.

One man one vote was published under the pseudonym John Miller and appeared in The Worker in June 1891. I personally find applying ret-con to Lane much harder because of the race-based and socialist rhetoric.

One Man, One Vote

As a natural result of common school education the common man is beginning to have opinions and to criticise institutions. In every country where common through is thus started its first encounter is with the customs which give one man authority over the other men regardless of the consent of those others.

If there is an absolute dictator men ask by what right John dictates to Tom. If there is a despotic emperor men ask who William is that Peter should be born to stand up or lie down as William directs. And if there is so-called representative government through which a a quarter of the community puts a ring in the nose of the other three quarters, the common men whose noses are ringed inquire energetically why this is thusly.

Here in Queensland, as in other parts of the world, we have found out that our noses are ringed by gross electoral inequalities; here, a small minority of squatters and land-grabbers have hold of the legislative rope with which they haul us about as much as they like.

One man, one vote means equal voice in law-making for all men, thereby giving the men of Queensland opportunity to be the rulers of Queensland and effectively snapping the ring-in-the-nose wherewith the propertied classes now control us for their own selfish purposes.

Based Upon General Principles

If we reason upon general principles, if we take into consideration accepted ideas of Freedom and Justice, particularly if we supposed that it is right to do to others as we would have others do to us, there can be no two answers about one man, one vote.

Free states are manifestly those in which government is by the will and with the consent of the governed, in which every man stands equal before the law. And it is manifestly unjust for one man or one set of men to make laws for others who are allowed no opportunity to take part in the making of such laws as it is manifestly necessary for men associated in a state to recognise some equitable method of arriving at a mutually authorative decision upon disputed points.

The broadest and the narrowest conceptions of Freedom, Justice, Right, Fair Dealing, both imply this; That laws shall be mutually agreed upon by those who by act of citizenship have agreed not only to keep for themselves but to maintain against attack all constitutional regulations instituted for the common well being.

A More Equitable Method of Government

One man, one vote is an attempt to reach a more equitable method of governance; it is a protest against the usurpation of governance which reached its climax under kingcraft and has been passed along from autocrat to aristocrat, from aristocrat to plutocrat, until it nearly confronts the democrat whom it has so long wronged.

The term one man, one vote expresses a principle which appeals to the hearts of all who desire a better world and higher civilisation, for it means that Man himself is to be recognised as the unit in the State, that at the ballot box Humanity alone shall be known, that as far as the law can do it every man shall enter the polling booth a simple citizen and no more.

The Truth That Man Is Equal

Blind fools may laugh at idealism all the like, but idealism, the recognition of Truths, is what moves mankind up the ladder of progress. And this has been one divine truth, known and loved and preserved for out betterance, through ages of darkness and degradation, that in spite of his inequalities Man is equal.

We have had the world bowing enslaved before an Alexander. We have had Russian boyars puddling their feet in the gutted entrails of human foot warmers. We have had French lords claiming the droit de seigneur , taking the peasants bride for the bridal-night. And among our own people we have seen and see still millions upon millions living like imbruted beasts.

But all the time the ideal has lived, enshrined in religions that sprung form the aching heart of the common people. At the Judgment-seat of God was Equality, there the robes of the king and the rags of the beggar fell to the ground together and each man stood naked as he was born and as he died. This is the ideal conception of Justice, that men in themselves are equal - and we want Justice to be with us a little for it is only through Justice that good can come.

The Right Of The Citizen

It is clearly Just and Right that all those who are citizens of a state should have equal voice in the making of the laws which all citizens are equally bound not only to obey, but to maintain.

The alien - that is the citizen of another state who enters our state as a visitor on suffrance only and who is not part and parcel of our community - may justly have demanded of him that while he is with us he should, without having a voice in the making, submit to our laws and conform to our regulations; his interests are not our common interests, he may be and often is more interested in weakening our social organisation than strengthening it, like the Chinaman his only object is generally to get wealth wherewith to return again to his own people; the claims of the citizen to recognition naturally do not apply to the alien.

Nor can the minors, the children, and the insane, those who are not yet grown to years of discretion or who are regarded by the laws very differently from adults, be presumed to rank as full citizens, as independent electors. But the adult members of any community , whether men or women, can in Justice demand an equal voice with any other member in the making of laws which each and every one of them must commonly obey and maintain.

Women Should Have Justice Too!

One man one vote has this weakness, this failing, that it does not include the women. Not a single principle can be advanced in support of the rights of men which does not apply with equal force to the rights of women. Our mothers, our wives, our sisters and our daughters are as essentially citizens of the State as any man of us.

They must obey all laws, they suffer from unjust laws, they benefit by good laws, equally with the rest of us. We men deserve to have Justice denied us if we deny Justice to our women.

But there is this about one man one vote agitation that it does not deny the rights of women. It simply deals with one part of an Injustice, leaving another part of the same Injustice to be dealt with in the future. And of this we may be sure and certain that the men of Queensland or of any other state, as a mass, will be far more inclined to secure for the womenfolk the same Justice which they have managed to secure for themselves than will any propertied selection which wields authority in defiance of all Justice and in antagonism to all conception of free and equal government.

Class Government is Usurpation

For this we must never lose sight of: class governance is a usurpation, a tyranny which has its root in the ages when armed robbers, military castes, ground the peaceful tillers of the soil into slavery. Our parliamentary system, of which the very opponents of one man one vote profess to be so proud, is only a degenerated survival of the assembly at which in primitive times our Teutonic forefathers gathered, free and equal, to make for themselves laws for their common governance.

And it is because of the countless generations the race we come of governed itself thus, knowing neither king nor landlord nor rank nor wealth nor place nor privilege in its tremendous march from Central Asia to the Atlantic Coast that the desire for self governance is so instinctive in us today.

It is told of these fathers of ours that, when the burst upon the rotten Empire of Rome, a band of Goths stormed and took a Roman town. Their chief, a man elected by his fellows to lead them to war, saw among the plunder a beautiful porcelain vase and set it aside for himself. "Why is that apart?" asked an old warrior. "It is the chief's" said a young one. Down came the old Goth's battle-axe, smashing the porcelain into atoms. "The Goths are equal", he cried "next time he steals let him look to his head."

So much for the privilege in the old Teutonic day, but wrong begot wrong and those who began by plundering others ended up being plundered themselves. The chiefs stole and stole and there were none left to break their heads and finally it came to that the common lands and the common cattle and the common law-making and the common liberties, the free conditions, which gave our race its brains and its vigour and its courage and its contempt for danger and its respect for women and hatred of lying and all that is good and true and loyal and brave in us, were all stolen away from us and we are what we are.

To win back our liberties is our duty.

We have a right to have them back and to govern ourselves for our own good in our own way. One man one vote is simply self-governance, a right list indeed by the crimes of some and the follies of others and the weakness of all, but still our right when we can get it for truths live always and Justice never dies.

The Plea of The Usurpers

The classes which have usurped government, which make pretense of representative authority while controlling the laws and domineering over the community by means of plural voting for themselves, whole disenfranchisement of the workers, unequal electoral districts and nominee chambers, have certain specious arguments against one man one vote with which they seek to lull their own consciences and to delude and bewilder us.

They ask if the drunken and the sober, the industrious and the idle, the ignorant and the intelligent, and so on through a whole catalogue of opposites, are to be equal at the ballot box. What do they really mean?

The Inequality of Intellect

This specious and pretentious argument against one man one vote is used by opponents so often that it necessitates notice otherwise undeserved. "You cannot make men equal," they say. "There will always be the intellectual and the foolish and some who will exert a personal influence not only over a whole people but for all time." Just so! We cannot make men equal where they are not equal but we can maintain the equality of men where it exists, as it does exist where it is now denied.

In our individuality, in our personality, in ourselves, as Men, we are all equal - and the only true inequality as in the influence which one personality wields over other personalities. For what to do with men like Sir George Grey, like Griffith, like McIllwraith, want more votes that the humblest when by their personally power they move hundreds and thousands, Sir George Grey hundreds of thousand, of minds?

Is there a single man of superior intellect in Queensland, or in Australia, or in the world, who does not affect somewhat the individuality of all who come within his sphere, no matter what he may be? And will one man one vote impede this influence of superior intellects, will it not rather strengthen and enlarge it in every way? For as things are, power is given not to the more intellectual, through a desirable influence on others, but to pickers-up of corner allotments, grabbers of squatting land, holders of various properties, whatever their intellectuality may be. This is absurd.

Morality As Qualification

As a matter of fact sobriety, industriousness, intelligence and general virtuousness are not intended by the usurping classes to the tests of electoral rights. Drunkenness is too usual among the working mass but is even more frequently seen among the rich and well to do. The Queensland Assembly of today, the meeting place of legislators who do not represent the people of Queensland, is often no better than the lobby of a pot-house and witnesses scenes which would not be tolerated for an instant in any friendly society of trade union meeting.

As for industriousness, it is only by the industry of the labouring people, so largely disenfranchised, that wealth exists at all. While as for intelligence, that is similarly not an attribute peculiar to those who by inheritance, luck, skin-flinting, or profit-mongering shrewdness have got to possess the property which is supposed to induce them with prerogative of ruling over their poorer fellow men.

If we were to set up a standard of morality as the qualification for those who would claim full citizenship, then we should have to disfranchise a very considerable percentage of plural voters and to admit to the franchise the vast majority of those now denied any share in the governance of their country. This twaddle about sobriety, industry, intellect and so forth is worthless sophistry, used only by those who for another reason desire to withhold from the people the inborn right of self-governance.

The Real Cause of Opposition

What is this other reason, the real reason, why one man one vote is opposed? It is opposed only by the propertied classes in their own selfish self-interest, by the great land monopolists, by the great mine-monopolists, by the importing and trading monopolists, by the banks, the syndicates, the employer's associations, and the hundred and one cringing dependents of these high priests of the great god Mammon.

They oppose it for this reason only, that the masses are intelligent enough, sober enough, earnest enough, to that Society Just, that government as we have it is a farce which is exerted for the advantage of Capitalism regardless of the well-being of the People at large. They fear that if one man one vote is secured by the common people, the labourers who toil and have nothing, the masses who are worse off amid all the luxury and flitter of our Christian civilisation than ever savages were in so-called heathen lands, that the first use made of that power will be legislative 'interference' with existing industrial conditions.

They are afraid of Eight Hour Bills and Factory Bills and Lien Bills, of the abolition of imprisonment for 'absconding' labourors, of resumption of the squatter-lands and reform of land laws generally, of work being found for the unemployed and of the refusal of popular parliaments to let workmen be shot down like dogs at the bidding of tyrannical Capitalism.

They object to Reform: that is the only reason for this opposition to one man one vote.

The Enemy Of The People

The man who opposes one man one vote is the enemy of the people. Whoever he is, wherever he is, no matter what he is, he would defraud his fellow men of their political rights solely in order to maintain the iniquitous laws and unbearable industrial conditions which every thoughtful man must see and which every honest man must admit to be wrong.

We may not all agree as to the best way to right these wrongs, we may differ utterly but honestly as to the unhappy inequalities which cause world-wide misery and discontent, but we must agree, if we are honest, that peaceful remedy can only come by the untrammeled play of that self-governance which is based upon Justice and ignores class and privilege.

It is not from the squatter and land-grabber, the syndicator and speculator that we can look for help. We must look to ourselves. And how can we look to ourselves so long as we are so disfranchised and handicapped while these gentry vote and count over and over again.

Our Duty To Ourselves

We must have one man one vote. We know now that we owe no duty to a law which usurpers impose upon us, that the government which denies rights to any people is a tyranny and that our duty to ourselves and to our fellows and to our children and to all Humanity is to make such tyranny impossible.

We know also that his usurpation of government by the classes over the masses is the great barrier to the changes which are absolutely necessary if Civilisation, with all that it implies, is not to pieces under our feet.

We want to get the ballot box, free and equal, and they are trying to prevent us. The employers' associations are organised to prevent us. Griffith quibbles when he is asked his intentions. The Government, the magistracy, the whole machinery of Capitalism, is doing everything in its power to bar the common man from the polling booth, to conserve the privileges of the favoured few.

And then they rave at us about "law and order". Have we not been as tolerant of their "law and order" as ever people could be who had the faintest inkling of what Justice was and who know that the laws have been deliberately designed to oppress the people by the privileged classes who have usurped lawmaking and now defend their usurpation against the one man one vote?