Harold Scruby Is On The Flag Case Again!

The silly season still continues.

Harold Scruby of Ausflag (and the Pedestrian Council) is back again on his old boring push for a change to the design of the Australian flag.

He says that our current flag is not Australian! Sorry Mr Scruby, you're wrong! The Australian flag was designed in Australia by Australians and was chosen as a result of a competition. While the flag didn't have any legal status for about 50 years, the design was approved by King Edward VII in 1902. Queen Elizabeth the Queen of Australia subsequently gave Royal Assent to the Flags Act on 14 February 1954 during her first visit to Australia which, incidentally, was also the first visit to Australia by a reigning monarch.

The cover of the Flags Act on which Queen Elizabeth II gave Royal Assent

Mr Scruby has indicated that it is an embarrassment that Fiji will change its national flag before Australia and that it is embarrassing that Fiji has beaten us (Australia) to it.  He also thinks that it is disappointing that a country like Fiji has got so much more vision than a country like Australia.

Well Mr Scruby, Fiji is no longer in the Commonwealth of Nations and is a republic and, therefore, has every right to change its flag. It is of no business to us what Fiji does with its flag.

Watch what Harold Scruby had to say about the Australian National Flag on Channel 7's Today Tonight programme on Friday, 13 December 2002.

Maybe it would be better if Mr Scruby just worried about the safety of pedestrians than worry himself for the rest of his life trying to change the Australian Flag. 

Click here for more information about the Australian National Flag

Don't forget that the Flags Amendment Act assented to on 24 March 1998 requires that if there is to be any change to the existing flag it cannot be changed without a vote of the people in each State and Territory and that the existing Australian National Flag and a new flag or flags would now be required to be submitted to the people. A majority of all the electors voting is now required to either retain the existing flag or change to a new flag.

HOWARD'S WAY WILL FAIL

The Prime Minister's options for constitutional changes to the Senate will fail in a heartbeat. Both of these options have some major deficiencies.

Firstly, it would require the people to give up a power that they currently have in the Constitution to the Government of the day. This in itself is likely to ensure that the referendum fails.

Similarly, it would remove a large chunk of the Senate's power as it would no longer have the ability to disagree with government legislation.

Finally, if either of the proposals was approved, it would not always guarantee to solve a deadlock because these options are dependent on the number of Government members and Senators at any given time. It is probably reasonable to assume that, with the current Senate arrangements, and when the numbers of the major parties in both Houses are close to equal, the more frustrating and less likely it would become for governments to get their legislation through the system!

The Prime Minister's options just fiddle at the edges. There is only way to fix the ongoing Senate problem and that is to reduce the number of Senators without reducing the number of members of the House of Representatives while retaining a nexus between both Houses.

The Constitution Alteration (Parliament) 1967 Referendum, had it been successful, would have broken the nexus entirely which would have allowed the Parliament to increase or diminish the numbers in both Houses independently of one another. A minimum number of 10 Senators and 5 members for the original States would have been entrenched in the Constitution. This proposed change gained an overwhelming NO vote in all States except in New South Wales where voters agreed to the change with 51.01% in favour. Failure was probably due to the fact that the people probably saw that this would have reduced their constitutional powers in that the nexus would have been abandoned.

The only way to fix the problem in the long term is to:

1. Reverse the nexus to make the House of Representatives the controlling agent in lieu of the Senate,
2. Set the number of people in each electoral division to be, as nearly as practicable, 80,000 - a figure that the arguments for change to the Senate was based on and which eventually led to the Representation Act 1983 which provided for 12 Senators for each of the original States, and
3. Set the number of Senators to be, as nearly as practicable, one quarter of the number of members in the House of Representatives.

That way, the numbers of both Houses would grow automatically and incrementally with population increase and would not need any further massaging by our elected public servants for the foreseeable future. This is more likely to be endorsed by the people than any other option; it will also fix the Senate numbers problem caused by the ease at which candidates can become elected to the Senate at a dissolution. Additionally, the government would not have to wait on Senate approval to get such a Constitution amendment Bill to be passed and presented to the Governor-General for submission to the people as S128 of the Constitution provides for such deadlocks in the Government's favour.

Further reading on this proposal can be accessed in the the document titled Senate and Sensibility.

Notwithstanding the aforesaid, any change is unlikely to take place unless there is genuine will from all of our Federal elected public servants to make change. Much will depend on whether or not our Federal elected public servants are able to place the Australian national interest well ahead of any selfish or political ideology. But if nothing is done, all we can expect is more of the same or an increasing chance of the Senate becoming even more contentious than it is now!