Both leaders in the New South Wales election were  gracious in their speeches at the conclusion when the results came in from the election.

Government will be transferred peacefully without the violence seen in so many other countries, even sophisticated democracies.

The Premier Ms. Kenneally will hand in her resignation to Her Excellency the Governor, Professor Marie Bashir, who provides leadership beyond politics.  Only a constitutional monarchy can ensure this.  At the same time, and putting policy aside, Australia will lose one of the most charming and attractive political leaders we have ever seen.

Mr. Barry O’Farrell will then be sworn in. No other system in the world has ensured over time such a peaceful transfer of power and one reflecting the people’s will.

..ACM campaign

 ACM never makes recommendations on how supporters should vote in elections. Rather we seek to ensure  people are informed on matters which are relevant to our mission.

So we are delighted that the next Premier, Mr. Barry O’Farrell, is committed to returning the Governor to Government house, and will, we are sure, resist the mindless and infantile creeping republicanism we have seen in the State for years.

His refusal to answer a question after the victory from the ABC's Kerry O'Brien ( "No I want to talk to Gladys" -the  shadow minister Gladys Berejiklian who was appearing on the same panel) is indicative of his calm inner strength. The phrase has already gone into the political lexicon – few politicians have ever stood up to Mr. O'Brien.

This will bring to a successful conclusion our fifteen year campaign to return the Governor to Government House. (For full details and history go to the icon Return the Governor on the front page of this site www.norepublic.com.au)

 

With increases in Liberal and certainly National and Christian Democrat representation, we can expect more constitutional monarchists in Parliament.

While the Greens seem locked into republicanism, the ALP, although officially republican is equivocal. For most of its history the Party has staunchly supported our constitutional monarchy. Its greatest leaders have all been monarchists.

 The relatively recent republican graft onto its platform was adopted half heartedly, and support is increasingly lukewarm. Indeed its implementation has been put off to the never-never.

 In time the Party will have to re-examine the relevance of this unachievable provision. To do so will represent a loss of face to the perpetrators, who are passing on.  That is why the State government kept the Governor out of Government House even when that was shown to be untenable, indeed ludicrous. 

 

... the strengths & weakness of the NSW voting system…

   

Once again we saw how well our Australianised Westminster system works – as it has worked for well over a century and a half.

Few countries entities have such a record and tampering with our constitutional system is fraught with danger.

In particular, it is clear the Republican movement is incapable of designing a republican model which can be safely grafted onto our  trusty and reliable Westminster system.

..voting…

There were two features of the NSW voting system which are attractive and which do ensure that the people's will is recorded.

One is the optional preferential system which takes away the requirement for the voter to give preferences when he or she  is not at all interested in doing so.

 And in voting above the line for the upper house, the voter can choose the way his or her preferences shall flow.

This is unlike the system for voting in the  Senate where preference flows are decided by the political parties. A voter has to be determined to find out what each party’s preference flows are.

This is an intolerable situation.

There were some weaknesses in the NSW system. Pre-poll voting is available on demand thus increasing the opportunities for fraud in a close election.

The point surely of an election to the lower house is that it  mirrors the intention of all voters on one day, except of course those who can demonstrate that it would be unfair for them not to be allowed to vote in advance.

The other weakness in NSW is that of identification both at the time of voting and at the time of registration.

There were even advertisements before the election inviting people to turn up on Saturday both to register and to vote. That must surely be open to abuse.

   

Once again we saw how well our Australianised Westminster system works – as it has worked for well over a century and a half.

Few countries entities have such a record and tampering with our constitutional system is fraught with danger.

In particular, it is clear the Republican movement is incapable of designing a republican model which can be safely grafted onto our  trusty and reliable Westminster system.

But the nSW voting sytem has both strengths and weaknesses.

There were two features of the NSW voting system which are attractive and which do ensure that the people's will is recorded.

One is the optional preferential system which takes away the requirement for the voter to give preferences when he or she  is not at all interested in doing so.

 And in voting above the line for the upper house, the voter can choose the way his or her preferences shall flow.

This is unlike the system for voting in the  Senate where preference flows are decided by the political parties. A voter has to be determined to find out what each party’s preference flows are.

This is an intolerable situation.

There were some weaknesses in the NSW system. Pre-poll voting is available almost on demand, thus increasing the opportunities for fraud in a close election.

The point surely of an election to the lower house is that it  mirrors the intention of the electorate on one day. The sole exception should those who can demonstrate that it would be most unfair for them not to be allowed to vote in advance – and only in advance .

The other weakness in NSW is that of identification both at the time of voting and at the time of registration.

There were even advertisements before the election inviting people to turn up on Saturday both to register and to vote. That must surely be open to abuse.

You can not pick up a registered mail package without identification.  Nor can you open a bank account. Is not voing equally important?