Answers:
\"Passing in the negative\" is quoted directly from the existing Constitution. It means that if a vote is tied, it fails.
I don\'t think the definition of Government and Parliament are substansively differentfrom that in the existing Constitution aside replacing the Queen with the Executive Council, or making the defacto de jeur if you like. But of course YMMV.
I don\'t know where I picked it up but I seem to have the idea that 2:1 MHR:Senator ratio is the status quo. I don\'t actually know if it is correct though.
Section 15 can hardly be said to have been rolled back. My intention was to ignore the rule that a replacement Senator must be from the same party - why should the document mire itself in factionalism? If I broke the process, well that is what drafts are for, I guess.
Once I made the decision to drop the restriction forbidding electorates from crossing state boundaries, it made no sense for the States to set the electoral boundaries. Move it on up the Federal Parliament. And yes, I have no problem at all involving the High Court in the process. I\'d rather they were involved than have no recourse for removing a gerrymander - it is the health of democracy at question and all.
As I said, the document was not finished. However, the States Council is intended to be one representative from each State who advise the GG. The idea is to put something concrete behind the exercise of the reserve powers and also to shift the balance of power in the Federation marginally towards the States. Thus the GG sacks the PM under the advise of the States Council. And, of course, there must be a way for the GG to ignore the States Council so as to not move the balance of power to much.
Comments