Talk:Proposed 2013 Australian constitutional referendum

It must be held by 11 January 2014, no?
Media is reporting the referendum has been "delayed indefinitely", which is code for shelving it or permanently abandoning it. And some commentators are decrying the cost of a stand-alone referendum ($140 million plus), as if that's an argument for waiting till the 2016 general election. But that's not possible, according to my reading of S. 128. That provides that if a referendum bill is approved by both houses, it must be submitted to the electors no less than two months but no later than six months after passage. If 14 September marked the 2-month mark as the earliest possible date, then doesn't this mean the referendum must be held on or before the 6-month mark, 14 January 2014? That being a Tuesday, the last possible date is Saturday 11 January 2014. No? If not, what am I missing?

Happy holidays, everyone. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, can anyone explain to me how it's been "cancelled" (as per the Proposed Deletion)? Who says it's been cancelled?  Isn't it the law of the land that it must be held between 2 and 6 months after passage through parliament?  How can this not happen?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  03:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It was reported on the IFES's twitter feed with a link to this story. Number   5  7  15:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I still don't understand how a government can just "cancel" or "kill" a referendum proposal that has passed the parliament. It is the law, just like any other law, and the Constitution seems to give no discretion for it not to apply, just like any other law.  Surely, at the very least, amending legislation would need to be passed to render the first legislation null and void.  Maybe that's in the pipeline anyway; but if so, it will also need to pass the parliament, and the commentators shouldn't be talking about the issue as if it was completely finalised.  That seems to be far from the case at the moment.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  01:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I assume there is some get out clause that if a referendum is not held, then the law is automatically voided. Warren Truss has apparently killed the referendum. Number   5  7  12:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Your first sentence makes no sense to me, as we're still well within the 2-6 month period. I'm assuming the legislation contained a proclamation date that was not a fixed date but subject to determination by the government, and the government has decided not to proclaim the legislation, meaning it never comes into operation.  I'd like to see confirmation of this, or otherwise.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  13:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear from the link above that the referendum is not going to happen. (Here it is again, "Abbott Government kills off local government referendum", Oct 31 http://www.news.com.au/national/abbott-government-kills-off-local-government-referendum/story-e6frfkp9-1226750784515 ) The question now is what to do with the article. I would suggest that a WP:PROD is inappropriate because that is for uncontroversial deletions, but anyone is welcome to propose it as a WP:AFD. My feeling is that there's some good and no harm in keeping it, so I would probably vote keep it. I'm not sure if there's ever been a referendum that got this far and was then abandoned, so I can't think of a precedent on how to handle it. We could have it in "struck out font" in the Referendums template like this:  2013 . Adpete (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing that it's been abandoned. What I want to know is, by what authority did they abandon it?  They can't just decide, for example, that the GST laws don't apply anymore.  There has to be a new law that abolishes them.  Same with this referendum.  It went through parliament, and the law says the poll has to be held between 2 and 6 months of passage through parliament.  How can that just not happen?  There's an important gap missing in our coverage of this process.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  07:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. Interesting. But from a Wikipedia policy point of view, you are straying into WP:OR, even if you're right. We just reflect what the WP:RS say. Adpete (talk) 11:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Unsigned comment
I found out about a bit of law over this. I wrote to my member of Parliament over this and received an interesting reply, which was that they have a legal opinion that they need not hold a referendum. The legal principle is that if no-one objects, you can do anything. All it would need is for someone (with a spare $100k for legal fees) to apply to the High Court for a writ of Mandamus, which is where the court orders the Governor-General to carry out his duty to issue a referendum writ. The fact that no-one did this shows how popular the referendum was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plerdsus (talk • contribs) 09:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a legal mechanism
Bob Hawke used it in 1984 and Tony Abbott did it with this in 2013: they withdrew the writ for the referendum. Doing that is arguably a "manipulation of the Constitution" (see also Helmut Kohl and the lead-up to the 1983 West German federal election) but it's perfectly within legal bounds. AUSPOLLIE (talk) 10:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)