Join the new world

The Constitution of eAustralia: Design through foundation

Hello eAustralia and thanks for reading.

Today I'd like to talk briefly, but poignantly, about my general thinking in the debate about the eAustralian Constitution and what - if elected - would be my approach to the table.

Speaking as someone from the RL world of politics, reading the viewpoints of Senators, Government officials and citizens alike has spurred an array of concerns about what's actually being debated - rather than the debate for argument's sake. Putting it another way: It doesn't appear that the concept of what a "constitution" is being completely understood.

This is not a new conundrum for any State - whether real or virtual. It's a never-ending confrontation with what should be and what shouldn't be in a document of this nature.

To begin with, some starting points:

1. A "Constitution" is not a set of laws or practices. At the heart of it, it's a documented sense of the rule of law.

Notation: It is clear upon reading through that the document, for many things, is being used for institutional establishment and as a regulation schedule. The enshrinement of principles cannot be regulated effectively and/or it can easily cause what's called constitutional lightning (where a determination of procedure or operation is inhibited through duplicitous or nebulous sanctioning caused by a subservient reaction).

E.g. "The Prime Minister can use his official eoffice providing he wear:

a) Blue underwear; however

b) If the Prime Minister is wearing pants, such as to make it difficult to tell if they are compliant with (a), then:

i) Red shorts with a blue thread is permissible, or
ii) They are actually wearing blue underwear, or
iii) They said so

Now, in the above comical (yet easily understood) example, the Prime Minister's dress code has a nebulous regulation. On one hand it is clear how he/she must comply and there are alternatives present, yet as per b(iii) - they can virtually thwart the purpose of the regulation to begin with.

In that example, the only meaningful way the Senate could alter that is via a constitutional amendment (which is separate to legislation in terms of passage quorum requirement and possibly welded in to keep the people in limbo). Therefore, it's vaguely designed and causes an inability to regulate from the central document.

2. Demonstrate precisely what the Constitution establishes, enforces and protects.

The general feeling amongst the populace is a realistic concern that the Constitution is attempting to mass legislate. That's a fair view. I won't delve into that side of the argument, suffice to say that #1 of this piece summarises the problems and questions of legality by doing so.

3. Use the protections of the eNation wisely, not to unravel the game theory.

I raise this point as the complete theory behind the Reserve Bank is as a private bank operating under the publicised premise that if a PTO is imminent - it protects the people's treasury.

That's a laudable concern and I commend the protection. However, this is not the intent of a Reserve Bank. I'm not aware of what the proponents behind the original establishment were thinking, although eAustralia was a country fighting for its independence from eIndonesia and that obviously came with it's fair share of issues.

I would recommend that the Senate and Government meet to establish a set of reasons why the Treasury would accrue such large wealth. I understand the money is there to fund the public need IG - but one has too ask why such a surplus? This can easily be concluded as existing since there is allegedly a massive concern about protecting the funds in ther event of a PTO.

My take on that? If the Government has such a surplus - give the citizens some tax relief. There is no reason to continually build up the Treasury if there are no major expenditures such as would warrant transfers between Treasury and the (supposed) RBA. Paying the bills is great, but the citizens need to have confidence in their official's fiscal credentials to turn off the tap before there becomes such a massive financial pool that other countries would want to tap to begin with, let alone run up inflation.

----

Thanks for the chance to speak my thoughts on this. With your vote, I will be a Senator with the people's aspirations firmly at the table. I will work with the Legislative and Executive Branches of our eGovernment to secure a future we can all be the beneficiaries of - and be proud.

Cheers!

T. J. Norton
SENATE CANDIDATE FOR eQUEENSLAND