This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. It needs additional citations for verification. Tagged since November 2008. Its lead section may not adequately summarize its contents. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of the article's key points. Tagged since November 2009.

A referendum (also known as a plebiscite or a vote on a ballot question) is a direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to either accept or reject a particular proposal. This may result in the adoption of a new constitution, a constitutional amendment, a law, the recall of an elected official or simply a specific government policy. It is a form of direct democracy.

Terminology[link]

The word plebiscite comes from the Latin plebiscita, which originally meant a decree of the Concilium Plebis, the popular assembly of the Roman Republic. Referendums and referenda are both commonly used as plurals of referendum. However, the use of referenda is deprecated by the Oxford English Dictionary, which advises that:

In the United States, a plebiscite is typically known as an initiative when originating in a petition of ordinary citizens, and as a referendum only if it consists of a proposal referred to voters by the legislature. A plebiscite can be considered a kind of election and is often referred to as such in the U.S. (an election literally means a choice). In other countries, the term election is often reserved for events in which elected representatives are chosen.

Procedure and status[link]

In a first classification by necessity, a referendum may be mandatory, that is, the law (usually the constitution) directs authorities to holding referendums on specific matters (such is the case in amending most constitutions, or impeaching heads of state as well as ratifying international treaties) and are usually binding. A referendum can also be facultative, that is it can be initiated at the will of a public authority (President of the Republic in France and Romania or the Government/Parliament in Greece or Spain) or at the will of the citizens (a petition). It can be binding/ non-binding.

A foundational referendum or plebiscite may be drafted by a constituent assembly before being put to voters. In other circumstances a referendum is usually initiated either by a legislature or by citizens themselves by means of a petition. The process of initiating a referendum by petition is known as the popular or citizens initiative. In the United States the term referendum is often reserved for a direct vote initiated by a legislature while a vote originating in a petition of citizens is referred to as an "initiative", "ballot measure" or "proposition."

In countries in which a referendum must be initiated by parliament, it is sometimes mandatory to hold a binding referendum on certain proposals, such as constitutional amendments. In countries, such as the United Kingdom, in which referendums are neither mandatory nor binding there may, nonetheless, exist an unwritten convention that certain important constitutional changes will be put to a referendum and that the result will be respected.

By nature of their effects, referendums may be either binding or non-binding. A non-binding referendum is merely consultative or advisory. It is left to the government or legislature to interpret the results of a non-binding referendum and it may even choose to ignore them. This is particularly the case in states that follow Westminster conventions of parliamentary sovereignty. In New Zealand, for example, citizen-initiated referendum (CIR) questions are broad statements of intent, not detailed laws. Following a referendum vote, parliament itself has the sole power to draft, debate and pass enabling legislation if it so chooses, and thus far, New Zealand governments have chosen to ignore completely two of the three proposals that have succeeded in forcing a vote since the CIR device was created in 1993. The third, a series of proposals about criminal justice, prompted some minor reforms only; it too was largely ignored. Matt Qvortrup in his Supply-side Politics (Centre for Policy Studies 2007) argues that this led to a disuse of the New Zealand device. While three petitions were launched in 2007, there was only one in 2004 and 2005, and none in 2006 and 2008 thus far. Only one of these have yet achieved the necessary signature target to force a vote, the overwhelming result (87% opposed) of which was largely ignored by the government.^{[citation needed]} However, according to the New Zealand Election Study,^[1] 77 percent of voters believe that the citizen initiated referendum make the politicians more accountable. Trust in politicians has grown by almost 20 percent since the introduction of the device, although that can be more plausibly attributed to the change in electoral system that occurred at the same time.

In most referendums it is sufficient for a measure to be approved by a simple majority of voters in order for it to be carried. However, a referendum may also require the support of a super-majority, such as two-thirds of votes cast. In Lithuania certain proposals must be endorsed by a three-quarters majority (among them, any proposal to amend article 148 of the Lithuanian Constitution, which states, "Lithuania is an independent and democratic republic").

In some countries, including Italy, there is also a requirement that there be a certain minimum turn-out of the electorate in order for the result of a referendum to be considered valid. This is intended to ensure that the result is representative of the will of the electorate and is analogous to the quorum required in a committee or legislature.

The franchise in a referendum is not necessarily the same as that for elections. For example, in Ireland, only citizens may vote in a constitutional referendum, whereas citizens of the United Kingdom are also entitled to vote in general elections.^[2]

Types[link]

A number of referendums are routinely held in various jurisdictions:

Foreign policy-oriented

• Independence (also known as Political status, devolution, sovereignty, etc.) - a referendum which is held to determine how a jurisdiction relates to either an incumbent outside nation-state or to other nation-states.
• Treaty (also known as Accession, membership) - a referendum to approve the proposed accession of the nation-state to a treaty or intergovernmental relationship
• War - a referendum to approve a declaration of war

Domestic policy-oriented

• Constitutional (or charter) - a referendum which is held to ratify a proposed constitution or constitutional amendment
• Prohibition - a referendum which is held to prohibit an action by private parties in a jurisdiction
• Rights - a referendum to determine the status of a class of people within a jurisdiction

Referendums by country[link]

Australia[link]

Approval in a referendum is necessary in order to amend the Australian constitution. A bill must first be passed by both houses of Parliament or, in certain limited circumstances, by only one house of Parliament, and is then submitted to a referendum. If a majority of those voting, as well as separate majorities in each of a majority of states, (and where appropriate a majority of people in any affected state) vote in favour of the amendment, it is presented for Royal Assent, given in the Queen's name by the Governor-General. Due to the specific mention of referendums in the Australian constitution, non-constitutional referendums are usually termed plebiscites in Australia.

Brazil[link]

Three nationwide referendums were held so far in Brazilian history.

In 1961, the country had just adopted the parliamentary government system, but in a referendum held in 1963, the Brazilian population was consulted about which government system should be withheld in the country and it was decided to have Brazil return to a Presidential system.

In 1993, another referendum to decide Brazil's government system was held. Voters could choose between keep the presidential republic system, adopt a parliamentary republic system, or adopt a parliamentary monarchy system. The majority of voters opined to maintain the current presidential government system.

In 2005 a referendum was held to consult the population about their opinion on the possibility to forbid the sale and civilian possession of firearms and ammunition nationwide. Most of voters declared themselves contrary to the ban and the laws regarding commerce and ownership of weapons in the country remained unaltered.

Canada[link]

Referendums are rare in Canada and only three have ever occurred at the federal level. The most recent was a referendum in 1992 on a package of proposed constitutional measures known as the Charlottetown Accord. Although the Constitution of Canada does not expressly require that amendments be approved by referendum, many argue that, in light of the precedent set by the Charlottetown Accord referendum, this may have become a constitutional convention.

A referendum can also occur at the provincial level. The 1980 and 1995 referendums on the secession of Québec are notable cases. In conjunction with the provincial election in 2007, the province of Ontario voted on a mixed-member proportional representation electoral system and British Columbia held two consecutive referendums on BC-STV in 2005 and 2009. In 2011 British Columbia held yet another referendum against a newly imposed HST tax. The results ended up making British Columbia the first province to overturn the harmonization of provincial and federal taxes.

Chile[link]

There have been four plebiscites and one "consultation" in Chilean history. In 1925, a plebiscite was held over a new constitution that would replace a semi-parliamentary system with a presidential one. The "Yes" vote won overwhelmingly, with 95% of the vote.

In 1978, after the United Nations protested against Pinochet's régime, the country's military government held a national consultation, which asked if people supported Pinochet's rule. The "Yes" vote won with 74%, although the results have been questioned.

Another constitutional plebiscite was held in 1980. The "Yes" won with 68.5%, prolonging Pinochet's term until 1989 and replacing the 1925 Constitution with a new one still used today. The results of this plebiscite have also been questioned by Pinochet's opponents, because of the lack of voters registration.

In a historical plebiscite held in 1988, 56% voted to end the military régime. The next year, yet another plebiscite was held for constitutional changes for the transition to a democratic government (the "Yes" vote won with 91%).

There have been several referendums in individual municipalities in Chile since the return to civilian rule in 1990. A referendum, which took place on 2006 in Las Condes, over the construction of a mall was noteworthy for being the first instance in Chilean history where electronic voting machines were used.

Costa Rica[link]

October 7, 2007 the first referendum held in Costa Rica was to approve or reject the free trade agreement with Central America, Dominican Republic (Costa Rica already has FTAs with the latter) and the United States known as the Dominican Republic – Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA).

It was very narrowly approved (49.030 votes). Results were 51.62% voted in favour and 48.38% against it. It is currently the only free trade agreement in the world that has been approved on a referendum.

From 2008 to 2010 conservative groups, linked to religious institutions, managed to collect 150,000 signatures to call a referendum to decline unions between same-sex couples. The Supreme Elections Tribunal (TSE) had scheduled the consultation on December 5, 2010.

However, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court rejected the referendum stating that "The rights of minorities that arise from anti-majoritarian claims can not be subjected to a referendum process which the majority imposes". This consideration supports the main argument of those who rejected the consultation considered a violation of human rights, among these gay groups and humanitarian actors.

The Board further considered that "people who have sex with same sex are a group at disadvantage and discrimination, which requires the support of public authorities for the recognition of their constitutional rights or other legislation". Decisions of the Constitutional Court are final so the ruling stopped the referendum and opened to the Congress the opportunity to continue discussing the bill on the recognition of homosexual unions.

Croatia[link]

Referendum in Croatia can be called by:

• Parliament of Croatia
• President of Croatia

Institution of referendum is regulated by article 87. of constitution of Croatia. Referendum can be called on any issue falling within competence of Parliament of Croatia or on any other issue which President of Croatia considers to be important for the independence, unity and existence of the Republic.

Since amendments to constitution in 2001, Parliament of Croatia is obligated by constitution to call a referendum if signatures of 10% of registered voters of Republic of Croatia are collected. Timeframe for collecting the signatures is defined by Law on referendums and it is 15 days.^[3]

Denmark[link]

In Denmark, after a law has been passed by parliament, one third of the members can demand a referendum^[4]. This does not apply to money bills or expropriation. A law that transfers sovereignty to an international organisation must be subjected to a referendum unless five sixth of the MPs vote for it. In both cases, to defeat the law the no votes must not only outnumber the yes votes, they must also number at least 30% of the electorate. Since all referendums have had much more than 60% turnout, no bill has yet passed due to lack of interest.

In practise, referendums have been held every time new treaties of the European Union have been approved, even when more than five sixths can be found. Recently, the Danish government was highly criticized when it did not hold a referendum regarding the controversial Lisbon treaty.

The Constitution of Denmark can be changed only after a referendum. To pass, the yes votes must not only outnumber the no votes, they must also number at least 40% of the electorate.

The present location of the border with Germany was determined by a referendum in 1920 after the German capitulation. See Schleswig.

Egypt[link]

On 19 March 2011 a constitutional referendum was held in Egypt, following the Egyptian Revolution of 2011. The reforms made it easier for candidates to run for president, limited the number of presidential terms to two four-year periods, and ensured judicial monitoring of elections.

Hong Kong[link]

Due to discontent towards the proposal of political reform made by the Hong Kong government, the Civic Party and the League of Social Democrats joined together to carry out "Five Constituencies Referendum" in early 2010, by having one Legislative Councillors (from either one of the parties) in each constituency resigned, forcing the government to carry out a by-election, thus giving a chance for all voters to show their will towards universal suffrage and the abolishment of functional constituencies .Quite often, it is refereed as "De facto referendum".

The Basic Law of Hong Kong does not provide for official referendums, but the pan-democrats hope that by returning the resignees to the Legislative Council, on their manifesto of real political reform in Hong Kong and the abolition of functional constituencies,^[5] the election can be seen as a de-facto referendum and an endorsement of these issues.^[6]

The original five pan-democrat Legislative Councillors were re-elected, the turnout was much lower than the expectation of the two parties, due to the suppression of pro-Beijing Camp.

Iceland[link]

The constitution of Iceland provides two articles on referendums:

• According to the 11th article, if 3/4 of the parliament votes to dismiss the president then that decision must be put to a binding referendum.
• According to the 26th article, should the president veto a bill from the parliament then it must be put to a binding referendum.

A total of 7 referendums have been held in Iceland, two of which were held after the nation declared independence and became a republic in 1944.

1. Prohibition referendum (1908)
2. Community service referendum (1916)
3. Sovereignty referendum (1918)
4. Prohibitation referendum (1933)
5. Constitutional referendum (1944)
6. Loan guarantees referendum (2010)
7. Loan guarantees referendum (2011)

Iraq[link]

The current Constitution of Iraq was approved by referendum on 15 October 2005, two years after the United States-led invasion. The constitution was designed to shift crucial decisions about government, the judiciary and human rights to a future national assembly. It was later modified to provide for the establishment of a committee by the parliament to be elected in December 2005 to consider changes to the constitution in 2006.

Ireland[link]

The current Constitution of Ireland was adopted by plebiscite on 1 July 1937. In the Republic of Ireland every constitutional amendment must be approved by referendum; 30 such referendums have occurred so far (from the enactment of the current constitution to the end of 2009).^[7] Constitutional amendments are first adopted by both Houses of the Oireachtas (parliament), submitted to a referendum, and are signed into law by the President. The signature is merely a formality: the president cannot refuse to sign into law an amendment that has been approved in a referendum. The constitution also provides for a referendum on an ordinary law, known as an 'ordinary referendum'. Such a referendum can take place only under special circumstances, and none have yet occurred. The closest referendum result was 1995's vote to legalise divorce - 50.3% voted "Yes" (to legalise divorce) and 49.7% voted "No." Only Ireland held a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon.

Italy[link]

The constitution of Italy provides for two kinds of binding referendums.

A legislative referendum can be called in order to abrogate a law totally or partially, if requested by 500,000 electors or five regional councils. This kind of referendum is valid only if at least a majority of electors goes to the polling station. It is forbidden to call a referendum regarding financial laws or laws relating to pardons or the ratification of international treaties.

A constitutional referendum can be called in order to approve a constitutional law or amendment only when it has been approved by the Houses (Chamber of Deputies and Senate of the Republic) with a majority of less than two thirds in both or either House, and only at the request of one fifth of the members of either House, or 500,000 electors or five Regional Councils. A constitutional referendum is valid no matter how many electors go to the polling station. Any citizen entitled to vote in an election to the Chamber of Deputies may participate in a referendum.

Malta[link]

There are three types of referendums in Malta: Constitutional, consultative and abrogative referendums.

Constitutional referendums are required by article 66(3) of the Constitution of Malta. While binding, it is limited to the single instance of amending the Constitutional provision on the maximum parliamentary term of five year. This type of referendum has never taken place.

The other categories of referendums are regulated by the Referenda Act. "Consultative" referendums (the Act does not use the term) can either take place prior to the assent of a bill in the House of Representatives or following the parliamentary procedure in a form of a conditional clause in the said bill. In the former case it would not legally bind Parliament to approve the said legislation irrelevant of the result of the said referendum, however the latter case, it would be conventionally binding on the President to promulgate the bill into law. There has been five referendums like this on a national level, one on a regional level (Gozo Civic Council referendum, 1973) and a number of local referendums organised by single Local Councils.

An abrogative referendum it has never been utilized and if invoked and successful can abrogate pieces of legislation barring some exceptions notably financial and constitutional law.

Moldova[link]

According to Article 75 of the Constitution of Moldova, "(1) Problems of utmost gravity or urgency confronting the Moldovan society or State shall be resolved by referendum. (2) The decisions passed in consequence of the results produced by the republican referendum have supreme judicial power." There were two referendums held in Moldova, in 1994 and 2010. The Moldovan referendum, 2012 will be held in April 2012.

Morocco[link]

There have been several referendums in Morocco. Most of which were related to the Moroccan constitution. Since he became king of Morocco, King Mohammed VI has led a lot of reforms that made Morocco an exception from all the other Arab countries. On February 20, 2011, Thousands took to the streets of Rabat, Casablanca, Tangier and Marrakesh in peaceful protests demanding a new constitution, a change in government and an end to corruption. During a march on Hassan II Avenue in the capital, Rabat, demonstrators demanded a new constitution to bring more democracy to the country. They shouted slogans calling for economic opportunity, education reform, better health services, and help in coping with the rising cost of living. On March 9, King Mohammed VI made a speech that was described as a "historical" speech in which he announced several reforms including a new constitution to the country. In a televised speech on Friday, 17 June, King Mohammed VI announced a series of constitutional reforms, to be put to a national referendum on 1 July. The proposed reforms would give the prime minister and the parliament more executive authority, and would make Berber an official language in Morocco, together with Arabic. The proposal would empower the prime minister with the authority to appoint government officials and to dissolve the parliament - the powers previously held by the king. However, the king would remain the military commander-in-chief and would retain his position as the chair of the Council of Ministers and the Supreme Security Council, the primary bodies responsible for the security policy. A new constitutional provision would also confirm the king's role as the highest religious authority in the country. Although most people were celebrating among the protesters after the King's speech, the leaders of the 20 February Movement rejected the proposals as insufficient and called for continuing protests on 19 June 2011. On 29 June 2011, the protesters called for a boycott of the referendum. The referendum was held on June 1, and almost all Moroccans said yes to it with a "98% yes" "2% No" turnout.

Netherlands[link]

In principle, national referendums in the Netherlands are not possible by law. However, from 2002 until 2005, there was a Temporary Referendum Law in place, which allowed for non-binding referendums, known in Dutch as Volksraadpleging ("People's Consultation"), to be organised for laws already approved by the House of Representatives. No referendum was called based on this law.

In order to hold the 2005 referendum on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, a different law was temporarily put in place. That referendum was the first national referendum in the Netherlands in 200 years and it was the result of an initiative proposal by parliamentarians Farah Karimi (Greens), Niesco Dubbelboer (Labour) and Boris van der Ham (Democrats).

New Zealand[link]

New Zealand has two types of referendum. Government referendums are predominantly about alcohol policy (although none has been held recently) or constitutional issues. However, there are referendums on other issues. Furthermore, constitutional issues, such as the establishment of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, may be done without a referendum. New Zealand also has provision for citizens-initiated referendums, although these are non-binding. The Prime Minister, John Key, has said he will work to raise the number of times referendums are used.

Norway[link]

The Norwegian Constitution does not mention refendums at all, and as such, referendums are not a part of Norwegian political practice. However, six advisory referendums have been held in Norway, most notably, the referendums on Norwegian EU membership, and the referendum for dissolving the union with Sweden. It is worth noting that these referendums, and potential future referendums, although legitimate as part of Norwegian constitutional convention, will not have any legal binding: They will merely be advisory, and the final decision will be taken by the Norwegian parliament, who may choose (albeit unlikely) to disregard the will of the Norwegian people as expressed through the referendum.

Portugal[link]

In Portugal, a Referendum is a determined proposition presented by the Government, Citizens or Political Organizations that is submitted to the popular pronouncement through a national election. Until now, there were already three Referendums: abortion, in 1998, when the "No" won; regionalization, in 1998, when the "No" won; abortion, in 2007, where the "Yes" won. This referendum was asked because the first referendum on this issue had a low turnout.

Romania[link]

Under the Romanian Constitution of 1991, revised in 2003, there are three situations in which referendums can be held. Article 90 of the Constitution establishes a facultative and non-binding referendum, which the President can initiate on matters of principle. Article 95 establishes a mandatory and binding referendum for the impeachment of the President in case he is deemed guilty of disobeying the Constitution. Article 151 also establishes a mandatory and binding referendum on approving Constitutional amendments. This last provision has been used twice: in adopting the Romanian Constitution in 1991, and amending it in 2003.

Serbia[link]

The Constitution of the Republic of Serbia was adopted on a referendum held in 28–29 October 2006. The constitutional referendum passed with 3,521,724 voting a 53.04% majority. 3,645,517 or 54.91% voted on the referendum, which made it legitimate.

Singapore[link]

According to the Constitution of Singapore, a referendum can be held in a few circumstances, including situations when a constitutional amendment passed by the Parliament is rejected by the President, or when the nation's sovereignty needs to be decided (i.e. merger or incorporation into other countries). There has been only one referendum in Singapore to date, which is the 1962 national referendum, deciding on the merger of Singapore into Malaysia. Singapore was eventually forced to secede from Malaysia and declared independence, which had not even been an option in the referendum, on 9 August 1965. Hence, Singapore became the only country to become independent against its own will.^{[citation needed]}

Sweden[link]

The Constitution of Sweden provides for both binding and non-binding referendums.^{[citation needed]} Since the introduction of parliamentary democracy, six referendums have been held: the first was about alcohol prohibition in 1922, and the most recent was about euro membership in 2003. All have been non-binding, consultative referendums. Two, in 1957 and 1980, were multiple-choice referendums.

Switzerland[link]

In Switzerland Swiss voters can demand a binding referendum at federal, cantonal and municipal level. They are a central feature of Swiss political life. It is not the government's choice whether or when a referendum is held, but it is a legal procedure regulated by the Swiss constitution. There are two types of referendums:

• Facultative referendum: Any federal law, certain other federal resolutions, and international treaties that are ongoing in nature, or any change to Swiss law may be subject to referendum if at least 50,000 people or eight cantons have petitioned to do so within 100 days. Within cantons and municipalities, the required number of people is smaller, and there may be additional causes for a facultative referendum, e.g., expenditures that exceed a certain amount of money. The facultative referendum is the most common type of referendum, and it is mostly carried out by political parties or by interest groups.
• Obligatory referendum: There must be a referendum on any amendments to the constitution and on any joining of a multinational community or organization for collective security. In many municipalities, expenditures that exceed a certain amount of money also are subject to the obligatory referendum. Constitutional amendments are proposed by the parliament or by the cantons or by citizens' initiatives. Citizen's initiatives at the federal level need to collect 100,000 valid signatures within 18 months, and must not contradict international laws or treaties. Often, parliament elaborates a counter-proposal to an initiative, leading to a multiple-choice referendum. Very few such initiatives pass the vote, but more often, the parliamentary counter proposal is approved.

The possibility of facultative referendums forces the parliament to search for a compromise between the major interest groups. In many cases, the mere threat of a facultative referendum or of an initiative is enough to make the parliament adjust a law.

The referendums are said, by their adversaries, to slow politics down. On the other hand, empirical scientists, e.g. Bruno S. Frey among many, show that this and other instruments of citizens' participation, direct democracy, contribute to stability and happiness.

The votes on referendums are always held on a Sunday, typically three or four times a year, and in most cases, the votes concern several referendums at the same time, often at different political levels (federal, cantonal, municipal). Referendums are also often combined with elections. The percentage of voters is around 40% to 50%, unless there is an election. The decisions made in referendums tend to be conservative. Citizens' initiatives are usually not passed. The federal rule and referendums have been used in Switzerland since 1848.

Taiwan[link]

The Referendum Act was promoted and introduced by the Democratic Progressive Party for years and then enacted by the Legislative Yuan in 2003. There have been six national referendums and two local referendums in Taiwan.

United Kingdom[link]

Although Acts of Parliament may permit referendums to take place, the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty means any Act of Parliament giving effect to a referendum result could be reversed by a subsequent Act of Parliament. As a result, referendums in the United Kingdom cannot be constitutionally binding, although they will usually have a persuasive political effect.

Major referendums are rare; only two have been put to the entire UK electorate. The first was the United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum, 1975, which was held two years after British accession to the European Economic Community to gauge support for continued membership. The second was the United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011. This was to vote on changing the 'First Past the Post' system to an alternative electoral system, the Alternative Vote.

Referendums have been held in individual parts of the United Kingdom on issues relating to devolution in Scotland and Wales, an elected Mayor of London and a Greater London Authority for Greater London, a regional assembly for the North-East of England and the constitutional status and governance of Northern Ireland. Since 1973, the year of the first such plebiscite, there have been nine major referendums.

In 2004, Her Majesty's Government promised a UK-wide referendum on the new European Constitution, but this was postponed in 2005 following the defeats of the French and Dutch referendums. Due to the replacement of the European Constitution with the Treaty of Lisbon, there was no obligation for a referendum. Referendums have also been proposed, but not held, on the replacement of the pound sterling with the euro as the currency of the United Kingdom. The present Scottish Government, a Scottish National Party administration, wishes to hold a referendum on Scottish Independence in 2014. As it is now a majority government, the referendum can pass through the Scottish Parliament unhindered. The Westminster government has also indicated that it will facilitate such a referendum.^[8]

At the local level, the Government has put proposals for directly-elected mayors to 37 local authority areas by referendum. The 1972 Local Government Act also contains a little-used provision that allows non-binding local referendums on any issue to be called by small groups of voters. Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum in 1994 on whether control of water and sewerage services should be transferred to appointed boards: this was largely a political tactic, since this was the policy of the UK Government at the time. The UK Parliament enacted the legislation anyway, and it came into force on 1 April 1996.

United States[link]

In the United States, the term "referendum" typically refers to a popular vote originated by petition to overturn legislation already passed at the state or local levels (mainly in the western United States). In industrial cities and regions, it refers to internal, union organization in terms of electing delegates or approving a collective bargaining agreement. By contrast, "initiatives" and "legislative referrals" consist of newly drafted legislation submitted directly to a popular vote as an alternative to adoption by a legislature. Collectively, referendums and initiatives in the United States are commonly referred to as ballot measures, initiatives, or propositions.

There is no provision for the holding of referendums at the federal level in the United States; indeed, there is no national electorate of any kind. The United States constitution does not provide for referendums at the federal level. A constitutional amendment would be required to allow it. However, the constitutions of 24 states (principally in the West) and many local and city governments provide for referendums and citizen's initiatives.

However, a Constitutional Convention can be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and that Convention to propose one or more amendments to the Constitution. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Uruguay[link]

The Uruguayan constitution allows citizens to challenge laws approved by Parliament by use of a referendum or to propose changes to the Constitution by the use of a plebiscite. This right has been used a few times in the past 15 years: to confirm an amnesty to members of the military who violated human rights during the military regime (1973–1985), to stop privatization of public utilities companies, to defend pensioners' incomes, and to protect water resources.

Other countries[link]

• Brazil: In October 2005, 122 million voters decided to continue to allow the sale of firearms in Brazil. This referendum was offered by the government as part of a violence minimization initiative known as project disarmament.
• East Timor, formerly governed by Indonesia, had a referendum on 30 August 1999, in which voters chose either to become a Special Autonomous Region within Indonesia, or for independence. Around 79% of voters opted for independence.
• Eritrea: In April 1993 nearly 1 million voters (a quarter of the population), cast ballots to become "sovereign and independent" of Ethiopia. This vote was the result of thirty years of war by Eritreans during their War of Independence. The result was a vote for independence by 99.8% of the voters.
• France: The practice of referendums for tough decisions appeared with Charles De Gaulle's Fifth Republic, in order to overcome the Parliament. A referendum can be called by the President for constitutional changes, treaty ratification, laws concerning the administration or the territory. The political risks involved made the practice rare. Most constitutional revisions went through the super-majority of the Parliament in Congress. Therefore, a procedure of popular initiative, backed by a handful of MPs, is being put in place.
• Iran: In 1979 and after the Islamic Revolution had toppled the Iranian monarchy, a referendum was held to choose the future governing system of the country. The question was a simple yes or no to the Islamic Republic, a system which combines direct representation with religious authority. The Islamic Republic was established after more than 98% of the population voted yes.
• 'Kashmir' (a state within the territory of India and Pakistan) The Security Council of United Nations on the complaint of Government of India concerning the dispute over the State of Jammu and Kashmir passed resolution 47(1948), “that both India and Pakistan desire that the question of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan should be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite”. It recommended to the Governments of India and Pakistan to restore peace and order in Jammu and Kashmir and provide full freedom to all subjects of the state, to vote on the question of accession.
• Puerto Rico: Three Puerto Rican status referendums (in 1967, 1993, and 1998) have taken place in Puerto Rico to determine whether the insular area should become an independent nation (comprising a republic and an associated republic), apply for statehood, or maintain commonwealth (Estado Libre Asociado) status. Remaining a commonwealth has been the result of all three referendums. There was also a 2005 referendum (Resolution 64) to determine whether the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico should be restructured (among other changes to become unicameral).
• Pakistan:General Pervez Musharraf held a referendum on 30 April 2002 to legitimize his presidency and assure its continuance after the approaching restoration of democracy. He thus extended his term to five years after the October 2002 elections. The voter turnout was 80 percent by most estimates, amidst claims of irregularities. A few weeks later, Musharraf went on TV and apologized to the nation for "irregularities" in the referendum.
• Singapore: On 1 September 1962, a referendum was held to put the terms of the merger with Malaya to a direct vote by the citizens of Singapore. (The decision to merge with Malaya had already been made.) There were three choices: 1) To merge with Malaya, having autonomy in labour and education; 2) To merge with Malaya, having same status as the other states in Malaya; 3) To merge with Malaya, having terms similar to those of the Borneo territories. Option #1 won with 71%. Two years after the merger, Malaysia expelled Singapore.
• Slovenia: There was an independence referendum on 23 December 1990. The turnout was 93.3% of all voters, of which 94.8% that cast a vote supported independence. It was the first such referendum in one of the then Yugoslavian republics and as such marked a turning point in the history of many nations. The results were announced on 26 December, and on 25 June 1991, Slovenian parliament passed an independence law proclaiming Slovenia a sovereign country. This was followed by the Ten-Day War, in which Slovenian forces drove the Yugoslav People's Army out of the country.^[9][10]
• Spain: In 1976 a referendum was held to determine if citizens wanted to change the political system (dictatorship) or not to change it, after the death of Francisco Franco. Spaniards chose (94%) to change ("Referéndum para la reforma política", literally «Referendum for political reformation»). Also, in 1986 another referendum approved Spain's membership of NATO.
• Russian Constitution of 1993 was adopted by controversial referendum.
• Venezuela: The 1999 constitution, created by the Chávez government, and approved by referendum, brought in the concept of requiring referendums for constitutional changes, as well as providing for recall referendums of elected officials (which require petitions of a minimum percentage of voters to be submitted). In the Venezuelan recall referendum of 2004 voters determined whether or not Hugo Chávez, the current President of Venezuela, should be recalled from office. The result of the referendum was to not recall Chávez.
• Thailand: On 4 September 2008, amidst hundreds of thousands of protesters demanding the government resign, Thailand's premier Samak Sundaravej's government approved the idea of a referendum to ask the Thai electorate if it wanted to keep the government or not. The plebiscite was not held because it was certain to legitimize unfairly the government's standing and policies.

Multiple-choice referendums[link]

A referendum usually offers the electorate only two choices, either to accept or reject a proposal, but this need not necessarily be the case. In Switzerland, for example, multiple choice referendums are common; two multiple choice referendums held in Sweden, in 1957 and 1980, offered voters a choice of three options; and in 1977 a referendum held in Australia to determine a new national anthem was held in which voters were presented with four choices.

A multiple choice referendum poses the problem of how the result is to be determined if no single option receives the support of an absolute majority (more than half) of voters. This can be resolved by applying voting systems designed for single winner elections to a multiple-choice referendum.

Swiss referendums get around this problem by offering a separate vote on each of the multiple options as well as an additional decision about which of the multiple options should be preferred. In the Swedish case, in both referendums the 'winning' option was chosen by the Single Member Plurality ("first past the post") system. In other words the winning option was deemed to be that supported by a plurality, rather than an absolute majority, of voters. In the 1977 Australian referendum the winner was chosen by the system of preferential instant-runoff voting.

Although California does not have deliberate multiple-choice referendums in the Swiss or Swedish sense (in which only one of several counter-propositions can be victorious, and the losing proposals are wholly null and void), it does have so many yes-or-no referendums at each Election Day that the State's Constitution provides a method for resolving inadvertent conflicts when two or more inconsistent propositions are passed on the same day. This is a de facto form of Approval Voting - i.e., the proposition with the most "yes" votes prevails over the others to the extent of any conflict.

Criticisms[link]

This unreferenced section requires citations to ensure verifiability.

Although some advocates of direct democracy would have the referendum become the dominant institution of government, in practice and in principle, in almost all cases, the referendum exists solely as a complement to the system of representative democracy, in which most major decisions are made by an elected legislature. An often cited exception is the Swiss canton of Glarus, in which meetings are held on the village lawn to decide on matters of public concern. In most jurisdictions that practice them, referendums are relatively rare occurrences and are restricted to important issues.

Advocates of the referendum argue that certain decisions are best taken out of the hands of representatives and determined directly by the people. Some adopt a strict definition of democracy, saying elected parliaments are a necessary expedient to make governance possible in the large, modern nation-state, though direct democracy is nonetheless preferable and the referendum takes precedence over Parliamentary decisions.

Other advocates insist that the principle of popular sovereignty demands that certain foundational questions, such as the adoption or amendment of a constitution, the secession of a state or the altering of national boundaries, be determined with the directly expressed consent of the people.

Advocates of representative democracy say referendums are used by politicians to avoid making difficult or controversial decisions.

Criticism of populist aspect[link]

Critics of the referendum argue that voters in a referendum are more likely driven by transient whims than careful deliberation, or that they are not sufficiently informed to make decisions on complicated or technical issues. Also, voters might be swayed by strong personalities, propaganda and expensive advertising campaigns. James Madison argued that direct democracy is the "tyranny of the majority."

Some opposition to the referendum has arisen from its use by dictators such as Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini who, it is argued, used the plebiscite to disguise oppressive policies as populism. Hitler's use of plebiscites is argued as reason why, since World War II, there has been no provision in Germany for the holding of referendums at the federal level.

Patten's criticism[link]

British politician Chris Patten summarized many of the arguments used by those who oppose the referendum in an interview in 2003 when discussing the possibility of a referendum in the United Kingdom on the European Union Constitution:

Never-end-um[link]

A further perceived flaw of the referendum is that, in some circumstances, the democratic spirit of the referendum may be flouted by the repeated submission to the referendum of a proposal until it is eventually endorsed, perhaps due to a low turn-out or public fatigue with the issue. This is especially a problem where a proposal may be difficult to reverse, such as secession from a larger country or the abolition of a monarchy. The repeated holding of a referendum on a single issue has been pejoratively referred to as a "never-end-um".

Many critics of the EU^[who?] point to the Treaty of Nice's ratification procedure in Ireland, where the government submitted the Treaty to a referendum twice, getting the required "Yes" vote on the second attempt. This controversy was repeated during the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon.

Closed questions and the separability problem[link]

Some critics of the referendum attack the use of closed questions. A difficulty which can plague a referendum of two issues or more is called the separability problem. If one issue is in fact, or in perception, related to another on the ballot, the imposed simultaneous voting of first preference on each issue can result in an outcome that is displeasing to most.

Undue limitations on regular government power[link]

Several commentators have noted that the use of citizens' initiatives to amend constitutions has so tied the government to a mishmash of popular demands as to render the government unworkable. The Economist has made this point about the US State of California, which has passed so many referendums restricting the ability of the state government to tax the people and pass the budget that the state has become effectively ungovernable. Calls for an entirely new California constitution have been made.^[12]

Sources[link]

• Emerson, P J. Defining Democracy puts both two-option and multi-option referendums into their historical context and suggests which are the more accurate measures of "the will of the people". The de Borda Institute is at http://www.deborda.org
• Emerson Peter, Designing an All-Inclusive Democracy (Springer-Verlag, 2007), describes the Modified Borda Count (MBC), as well as the Quota Borda System (QBS) and the matrix vote.
• The Federal Authorities of the Swiss Confederation, statistics (German). http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/17/03/blank/key/stimmbeteiligung.html

See also[link]

• History of direct democracy in the United States
• List of politics-related topics
• Political science
• Direct democracy
• Referendums related to the European Union
• Initiative
• Initiative and referendum
• United Nations in Kashmir
• Independence referendum
• Popular referendum
• War referendum

Specific referendums[link]

• Arizona Proposition 204, 2006
• Australian referendum, 1967 (Aboriginals)
• Belfast Agreement (1998)
• Bolivian gas referendum, 2004
• Carinthian Plebiscite (1920)
• Cypriot Annan Plan referendum, 2004
• Edinburgh congestion charge (2005)
• Kenyan constitutional referendum, 2005
• Montenegrin independence referendum, 1992
• Montenegrin independence referendum, 2006
• Norwegian prohibition referendum, 1919
• Norwegian continued prohibition referendum, 1926
• Norwegian European Communities membership referendum, 1972
• Norwegian European Union membership referendum, 1994
• Panama Canal expansion referendum, 2006
• Puerto Rico status referendums (1967, 1993, 1998)
• Republic of China referendums
• Serbian constitutional referendum, 2006
• South African referendum, 1992
• Tokelauan self-determination referendum, 2006
• Venezuelan recall referendum, 2004
• Referendums in Canada
  • Alberta liquor plebiscite, 1957
  • British Columbia aboriginal treaty referendum, 2002
  • British Columbia electoral reform referendum, 2005
  • British Columbia electoral reform referendum, 2009
  • Charlottetown Accord
  • List of Northwest Territories plebiscites
  • Newfoundland referendums, 1948
  • Northwest Territories division plebiscite, 1982
  • Nunavut capital plebiscite, 1995
  • Ontario electoral reform referendum, 2007
  • Ontario prohibition plebiscite, 1894
  • Ontario prohibition referendum, 1902
  • Ontario prohibition referendum, 1919
  • Ontario prohibition referendum, 1921
  • Ontario prohibition referendum, 1924
  • Prince Edward Island electoral reform referendum, 2005
  • Quebec referendum, 1980
  • Quebec referendum, 1995
  • Saint John, New Brunswick ward plebiscite, 2007
• Referendums in the United Kingdom
  • United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum, 1975
  • United Kingdom European Constitution referendum (proposed)
  • United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011
  • Northern England devolution referendums, 2004
  • Northern Ireland Belfast Agreement referendum, 1998
  • Northern Ireland sovereignty referendum, 1973
  • Scottish devolution referendum, 1979
  • Scottish devolution referendum, 1997
  • Welsh devolution referendum, 1979
  • Welsh devolution referendum, 1997
  • Welsh devolution referendum, 2011
  • Edinburgh congestion charge
  • Greater London Authority referendum, 1998
• Referendums related to European Union accession:
  • Danish European Communities membership referendum, 1972
  • Norwegian European Communities membership referendum, 1972
  • Norwegian European Union membership referendum, 1994
  • Polish European Union membership referendum, 2003

References[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Referendums

Prashant Bhushan (Hindi: प्रशांत भूषण) (born 1956) is an advocate practising in the Supreme Court of India in Delhi and a social activist. He has been involved in many Public Interest Litigation cases and is a senior member of "Team Anna", which supports Anna Hazare in his anti-corruption campaign. He has drawn controversy over various statements, including accusing chief judges of corruption and supporting a plebiscite for Kashmir separatists.

Birth and education[link]

Prashant is the son of Shanti Bhushan, who was union minister for law in the government of Morarji Desai between 1977 and 1979. Bhushan dropped out of studying mechanical engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology Madras after a semester. He then studied first economics and then philosophy of science at Princeton University but left before graduating and returned to India where he received a law degree from Allahabad University.^[1]

Career[link]

Prashant Bhushan began practising as an advocate in the Supreme Court of India in 1983, specialising in Public Interest Litigation. His main areas of interest have been Human Rights, the Environment and ensuring that public servants are accountable. He is associated with various organisations including the Centre for Public Interest Litigation, People's Union for Civil Liberties, Committee on Judicial Accountability and Transparency International (India).^[2] As of 2012 Bhushan was the convenor of the Working Committee of the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Judicial Reforms.^[3]

Centre for Public Interest Litigation[link]

Bhushan has acted as an advocate for the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) on several occasions. In October 1997 the Delhi High Court heard a CPIL petition over the award of contracts to Enron and Reliance Industries to develop the Panna-Mukta oilfield, and issued notices to the involved companies and government organisations. Prashant Bhushan acted as advocate for CPIL. The petition claimed an inquiry was justified on the basis of testimony that Reliance had bribed the minister of petroleum, Satish Sharma, to get the award.^[4] The CPIL won a major victory in 2003 when the Supreme Court restrained the Central government from privatising Hindustan Petroleum and Bharat Petroleum without the approval of Parliament.^[5] As counsel for the CPIL, Rajinder Sachar and Bhushan argued that the only way to disinvest in the companies would be to repeal or amend the Acts by which they were nationalised in the 1970s.^[6] As a result, the government would need a majority in both houses to push through any privatisation.^[7]

Shanti and Prashant Bhushan were council for the CPIL seeking a direction from the Supreme Court that Dalits who had converted to Christianity should be entitled to the same reservation they had enjoyed as members of Scheduled Castes. The Union government said this was purely a legislative matter, but in February 2005 the Supreme Court decided to again review the constitutional issue.^[8] In February 2005 Bhushan and Anil B. Divan were counsel for CPIL seeking quashing of the CVC Act, 2003, which requires the CBI to obtain permission from the Union government before registering corruption cases against senior bureaucrats. Bhushan argued that the act violated the basic rights of citizens and was counter to the rule of law. The Supreme Court referred the question to a constitution bench of five judges.^[9]

Bhushan represented the CPIL in a petition asking for the removal of Neera Yadav from office as Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh for alleged corruption. Yadav had been named in five CBI corruption cases and 23 departmental proceedings. In October 2005 the Supreme Court directed the Mulayam Singh state government to remove her from her position.^[10] Yadav managed to stall her prosecution, but in December 2006 the Supreme Court removed all obstacles to her trial.^[11] The case became the first in which an IAS officer of Uttar Pradesh was convicted of corruption.^[12]

In 2006 Bhushan represented the CPIL in a petition alleging that Pepsico and Coca-Cola were failing to warn the public of harmful ingredients in their beverages, and were luring young children through misleading advertising.^[13] In 2007, Bhushan filed a petition on behalf of the CPIL with the Delhi High Court to investigate whether there had been kickbacks in the 2005 Scorpene submarine deal. The High Court took a strong line with the investigating agency, saying "We feel dissatisfied with that you've done so far. If you've tried to shield someone, then we will come down very heavily on you".^[14]

Prashant Bhushan acted for the CPIL when it took the lead in filing a suit against the Government of India for irregularities in a major award of spectrum for 2G mobile telephones. The CPIL petition alleged that the government had lost $15.53 billion by issuing spectrum in 2008 based on 2001 prices, and by not following a competitive bidding process.^[15] In September 2011 Bhushan presented evidence that appeared to disprove the claim by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) that Dayanidhi Maran, the former telecom minister, had not applied undue pressure to the owner of Aircel to sell to the Maxis group of Malaysia. Bhushan said the CBI's investigation had been "less than honest".^[16] In January 2012 Bhushan questioned why the CBI had failed to lay charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act against companies such as Essar Group and Loop Mobile despite strong evidence against them.^[17] In February 2012 the Supreme Court declared the allocation of spectrum had been illegal.^[18]

Team Anna[link]

On 30 January 2011 there were "India against Corruption" marches across the country to demand strong laws against corruption and passage of the Jan Lokpal Bill for independent oversight of politicians and bureaucrats. Prashant Bhushan and his father Shanti Bhushan were among the marchers in Delhi. Others prominent protesters included Kiran Bedi, Arvind Kejriwal, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Swami Agnivesh, Maulana Mahmood Madani, Vincent Conçessao, Aruna Roy and Harsh Mander.^[19] At another anti-corruption rally on 26 February 2011 the activist Anna Hazare said he would start an indefinite fast on 5 April unless decisive action was taken on the Lokpal Bill. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh invited Hazare, Swami Aginvesh, Prashant and Shanti Bhushan and Kiran Bedi to meet with him on 7 March.^[20] Anna Hazare nominated Prashant Bhushan and his father Shanti as civil society members of the joint committee constituted in April 2011 to draft the Lokpal Bill.^[21] Other civil society members were Hazare himself, Karnataka Lokayukta (ombudsman) N. Santosh Hegde and Arvind Kejriwal. All these members decided to declare their assets.^[22]

In May 2011 Bhushan said "The basic idea of an empowered Lokpal is that it will have full autonomy, independence from the government, power to investigate complaints of corruption and prosecute all public servants, among other. This principle is non-negotiable". He said that only the details were open for discussion.^[23] The Team Anna "Jan Lokpal Bill" had eleven members accountable to the Supreme Court, and supervised by complaint authorities. The Central Bureau of Investigation anti-corruption unit would report to the Jan Lokpal, thus maintaining independence from the government in investigations.^[24] Later in May Bhushan and fellow civil-society member Arvind Kejriwal said the government was breaking its word by saying the Lokpal should not be able to investigate the Prime Minister. The government was also against letting the Lokpal investigate senior judges, defence services and the conduct of MPs within parliament. The only scope for Lokpal investigations would be corruption by MPs outside parliament, and a small number of senior civil servants.^[25] At this point a breakdown in the talks seemed inevitable.^[26]

In June 2011 Bhushan pointed out that key proposals made by Team Anna had been omitted from the latest government draft. These included the power to tap telephones and to recommend that public authorities change their work practices to make corruption less likely and to prevent victimisation of whistle blowers. Lokpal should also be able to recommend cancellation of contracts and blacklisting of firms or people involved in corrupt practices. The CBI anti-corruption wing should come under Lokpal and be independent of the central government.^[27]

That month Baba Ramdev began an "indefinite fast against corruption". Bhushan criticised Ramdev's decision to share his platform with leaders from the Hindutva organisations Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Vishwa Hindu Parishad.^[28]

On 4 August 2011 the government's version of the Lokpal bill was tabled in the Lok Sabha.^[29] Bhushan said the government's draft should be called the "Promotion of Corruption Bill 2011" or the "Protection of Corrupt Public Servants Bill 2011". He said the bill was designed to protect the corrupt and to deter complaints.^[24] On 10 August Bhushan said Team Anna demanded that this version be withdrawn. He said: "We are going to put forward our views, that how the Bill prepared by the government will encourage corruption instead of curbing it and will provide protection to the corrupt officials".^[29]

Following Hazare's detention for staging a demonstration, on 16 August 2011 Prashant Bhushan said that peaceful protests had been arranged across the country. He said the Delhi police had detained Hazare at the bidding of the cabinet: "There is no freedom for Delhi Police. It has become a puppet, an ornament in the hands of Central government".^[30] Later that month Anna Hazare began a hunger strike. Bhushan said the government could not postpone passing a proper Lokpal bill indefinitely. He reported that Anna Hazare had said he would fast until Hazare's draft Lokpal bill was introduced into parliament and passed, or that he would fast until death.^[31] On 28 August Hazare called off his fast. Two days later it was announced that Arvind Kejriwal and Prashant Bhushan would have an informal meeting with Abhishek Singhvi, chairman of the parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Justice to discuss how the committee would proceed in reconciling the various draft anti-corruption laws, which could take several months.^[32]

In September 2011 Bhushan criticised the proposed National Judicial Oversight Committee. He said that inclusion of "brother judges" in the committee would prevent it acting impartially, and including two MPs in the committee would compromise judicial independence. Team Anna had proposed a 5-person committee independent of both the executive and the judiciary.^[33] In January 2012 Bhushan said in a press conference that Team Anna was working on a draft amendment to the constitution that would ensure the people had more say in the framing of laws.^[34] Bhushan and Hazare both opposed the Lokpal bill that was eventually introduced by the government, saying in February 2012 that it was very weak.^[35]

Other cases[link]

Bhushan has acted on a wide variety of high-profile cases. In 1992 he initiated a petition in the high court of Karantaka alleging bribery in the Mangalore Power Company project. After seven years, this was eventually dismissed.^[36] In 1998, as counsel for Arun Kumar Aggarwal, he initiated a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the Union Government of India and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) for retaining SEBI chairman D.R. Mehta after his three-year term had expired.^[37] Prashant Bhushan and Nitya Ramakrishnan were appointed counsel for the four people accused of the attack on parliament on 13 December 2001.^[38] The four were found guilty on 16 December 2002.^[39]

Bhushan assisted the Narmada Bachao Andolan activists opposed to the Sardar Sarovar Dam.^[2] After six years of hearings, in October 2000 the Supreme court ruled to allow the massive project to recommence. Bhushan criticised the decision for having been made "without any evidence of the facts [being presented] before the judges".^[40] Bhushan defended novellist Arundhati Roy when she was charged with contempt of court for publicly criticising judges in the dam hearings. In March 2002 she was sentenced to one day in jail. According to Bhushan the judges were "just affronted by the fact that somebody has dared to criticise them".^[41] In April 2002 a constitutional bench ruled that the decisions of the Supreme Court could not be assailed, but someone who felt they had suffered a gross miscarriage' of justice could move a "curative" petition. Bhushan described this ruling as retrograde – a step backward.^[42]

In 2003 Bhushan filed a petition against Akhand Pratap Singh, chief secretary of the Uttar Pradesh state government, challenging a decision to extend his tenure. The petition alleged that Singh had been voted "most corrupt officer" in 1997 by the UP IAS Officers Association. The state government had ignored requests to allow a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into graft charges. In November 2003 the petition was refused.^[43] In July 2005 Bhushan was a member of an independent panel investigating a possible scam involving a company that made a huge profit buying and reselling Mumbai Airport Centaur Hotel and the son in law of former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee.^[44] In September 2005 Bhushan represented Common Cause, a social organisation, seeking to reopen the petrol-pump scam case against Satish Sharma, a former minister of petroleum in the Union government.^[45]

In February 2006, as counsel for Lok Sevak Sangh, Bhushan submitted to the Supreme Court that the MP Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS) might not be constitutionally valid. A TV channel had recently aired video of a sting in which it appeared that some MPs had taken bribes under the scheme. Bhushan said none of the normal controls were being applied, and the scheme was breeding corruption.^[46]

Some other widely discussed cases in which he has appeared relate to the Bofors scandal, disposal of the Dabhol Power Station after the Enron bankruptcy, Doon Valley Mining litigation, Right to Information Act and Mauritius Double Taxation. He appeared in a controversial case in which candidates for election to public office were required to disclose their assets and any criminal convictions.^[2]

Controversy and criticism[link]

Bhushan has often been involved in controversy. He has been criticised by a variety of people including members of both Congress and the BJP.

Judicial corruption allegations[link]

Prashant Bhushan mounted a persistent campaign against judicial immunity, and this influenced the decision in September 2009 that judges would declare their assets. Not long after, Bhushan asserted in an interview published by Tehelka magazine that "half of the last 16 Chief Justices have been corrupt". A lawyer filed a charge of contempt of court against Bhushan and the editor of the magazine. In October 2010 Prashant Bhushan and his father Shanti Bhushan both filed formal affidavits alleging that eight retired chief justices were corrupt. They noted the difficulty of getting documentary evidence because judges are immune from investigation.^[47] Justice Krishna Iyer, a former supreme court judge, said that either Shanti Bhushan and Prashant Bhushan should be punished for making "false charges" or an independent authority should scrutinise their allegations.^[48]

Kashmir plebiscite remarks[link]

On 26 September 2011 Bhushan was asked for his opinion on Kashmir at a press conference in Varanasi. He said: "It is my personal opinion that no country or part of its territory can be governed without the wishes of the people with the help of army...I want that the situation be normalised, [the] Army be withdrawn, the Armed Forces Special Powers Act be also withdrawn and then try to persuade the people of Kashmir to stay with India. And yet, if the people want, then there could be a plebiscite, and if the people of the Valley want separation, they be allowed to separate".^[49]

On 12 October 2011, Bhushan was attacked and beaten up because of this statement.^[50] The incident happened while a Times Now news channel team was interviewing Bhushan.^[51] Three youths entered his chamber in the Supreme Court, dragged him from his chair, slapped and punched him. Two escaped. The third claimed to belong to an organisation called "Bhagat Singh Kranti Sena".^[52] He said: "We will break the heads of those who will try to break India". The incident was captured by the television crew.^[53]

Bhagat Singh Kranti Sena claimed responsibility for the attack.^[54] Six hours before the attack, the group had posted on Facebook: "God give us power to complete our mission."^[55] In a Facebook post afterwards they wrote "we hit prashant bhushan hard in his chamber in supreme court.if u will try to break my nation,i will break ur heads." [sic]^[56] P. Chidambaram, the Home Minister, condemned the attack. He dispatched a representative to the hospital where Bhushan had been taken for a check-up. Digvijaya Singh, General Secretary of Congress, said one of the attackers was a BJP youth worker, a charge that was immediately denied by the BJP.^[57] Bhushan described the activists as having a "fascist mindset" and stood by his statements.^[58]

The Shiv Sena called for Bhushan to be tried for his statements about Kashmir.^[59] Bal Thackeray, the leader of Shiv Sena, said "I praised the people who attacked him. No mercy should be shown to the people who advocate the division of the country".^[60] It was reported on 19 October 2011 that a court in Varanasi had accepted a complaint against Prashant Bhushan requesting a treason case.^[61] Anna Hazare said "Bhushan's statement (on Kashmir) is not the views of the team. He has never asked the team. These are his personal views".^[62] Hazare said "Our core committee will meet to decide on his continuing as a team member. After it meets. I will take a decision".^[63] In the event, Bhushan remained part of the team.^[35] In April 2012 Bhushan said that while Team Anna supported Raj Thackeray's initiative to subject party candidates for election to examinations, they did not support Thackeray's political views.^[64]

Other controversy[link]

In February 2001 a criminal petition was filed with the Supreme Court of India accusing Medha Patkar, Prashant Bhushan and Arundhati Roy of contempt of court for having demonstrated in front of the Supreme court in protest against the judgement on the Sardar Sarovar Dam.^[65] During an interview with a former police office, the anchorperson of the Times Now TV channel turned to the camera and said: "Arundhati Roy and Prashant Bhushan, I hope you are watching this. We think you are disgusting".^[66]

On 2 February 2010 the BJP government of Himachal Pradesh granted Prashant Bhushan's "Kumud Bhushan Educational Society" permission to buy 4.68 hectares (11.6 acres) of land in order to build an educational institution.^[67] The sale was controversial because only the state government can give permission for sale or change of status of tea garden land.^[68] Union minister Virbhadra Singh charged that the sale was illegal. However, Chief Minister Prem Kumar Dhumal rejected these charges in February 2012, defending the grant of relaxations to the educational trust, and countered that the Congress government had been giving land to Tibetans that belonged to Himachal Pradesh.^[69] Bhushan had put up two buildings on the site and was using them to run workshops on policy awareness. He said that the plantation was in disuse and most of the bushes had died, but he had planted new bushes.^[70]

The Bharatiya Janata Party criticised Anna Hazare's nomination of the Bhushans to the Lokpal committee.^[21] Guru Baba Ramdev also criticised inclusion of both father and son, calling it nepotism. Hazare defended the choice on the basis of the experience and ability of the two Bhushans.^[71] Soon after the committee began work, a CD was released that appeared to be a recording of conversation between Bhushan's father and Amar Singh of the Samajwadi Party related to the 2G case that was being heard at the time. If genuine, the CD would discredit Shanti Bhushan. Prashant Bhushan stated that labs had shown the CD was doctored. He and Anna Hazare said its purpose seemed to be to stop or delay both the 2G hearings and the Lokpal committee.^[72] Later Singh claimed in a press conference that Bhushan telephoned him and tried to stop him from talking.^[73]

On 15 April 2011 Congress leader Digvijay Singh alleged that the two Bhushans had failed to pay taxes due when they bought an investment property in Allahabad. Bhushan denied the charge, calling it a "very organised and concerted attempt to smear members of the civil society in the drafting committee with allegations".^[74] On 9 January 2012 it was reported that Shanti Bhushan had been found guilty of evading stamp duty on the home he had bought in Allahabad. The Assistant of Stamp Duty in Allahabad said the property, which Shanti Bhushan had bought in 1965, had been grossly undervalued, as had the related taxes. Revised stamp duty, interest on arrears and a fine would be levied. Shanti Bhushan said ""This order of the Stamp Collector is totally illegal and contrary to the law ... This order has been clearly made under political pressure".^[75]

In September 2011 Bhushan, Arvind Kejriwal and Kiran Bedi were being threatened with charges of breach of privilege for making derogatory remarks about MPs. Bhushan urged MPs to not be so sensitive to criticism, saying the law of defamation gave them enough protection. Attempts to use their privileges to suppress free speech and crticism would backfire by making people feel there was a serious problem in the way that parliament was functioning.^[76]

In February 2012 Bhushan surprised commentators by coming out in favour of the government's proposed National Counter Terrorism Council.^[35] In April 2012 Bhushan drew criticism from Congress leaders when he refused to act as a mediator in negotiating with Maoists who were holding a District Collector hostage. He called for the Maoists to release the officer without conditions. He also said that the government should investigate and address legitimate demands.^[77]

Bibliography[link]

• Prashant Bhushan (1978). The case that shook India. Vikas Pub. House. pp. 294. ISBN 0-7069-0594-6. 
• Prashant Bhushan (1990). Bofors, the selling of a nation. Vision Books. pp. 275. ISBN 81-7094-066-4. 

References[link]

External links[link]

• "Conversation with Prashant Bhushan". Bar & Bench. 25 October 2010. http://www.barandbench.com/brief/4/1066/conversation-with-prashant-bhushan. Retrieved 27 April 2012. 
• V. VENKATESAN (14–27 August 2010). "No one wants independent investigation". Frontline. http://www.frontline.in/fl2717/stories/20100827271703000.htm. Retrieved 27 April 2012. 
• SHOMA CHAUDHURY (5 September 2009). "Half Of The Last 16 Chief Justices Were Corrupt". Tehelka. http://www.tehelka.com/story_main42.asp?filename=Ne050909half_of.asp. Retrieved 27 April 2012. 
• Vikram Jit Singh (24 November 2006). "We have had many corrupt CJIs in the last 15 years". Tehelka. http://www.tehelka.com/story_main23.asp?filename=We_have_Prashant_Bhushan_SP.asp. Retrieved 27 April 2012. 

Senator Dr. Bob Brown MB BS
Senator Bob Brown
Senator for Tasmania
Incumbent
Assumed office 1 July 1996
Succeeded by	Peter Whish-Wilson (elect)
Constituency	Tasmania
Leader of the Australian Greens
In office 28 November 2005 – 13 April 2012
Deputy	Christine Milne
Preceded by	new position
Succeeded by	Christine Milne
Member of the Tasmanian Parliament for Denison
In office 4 January 1983 – 12 February 1993
Preceded by	Norm Sanders
Succeeded by	Peg Putt
Personal details
Born	Robert James Brown (1944-12-27) 27 December 1944 (age 67) Oberon, New South Wales
Nationality	Australian
Political party	Australian Greens (1996-present)
Other political affiliations	Tasmanian Greens (1983-1993)
Domestic partner	Paul Thomas
Residence	Hobart
Alma mater	University of Sydney
Occupation	Politician
Profession	Doctor
Religion	lapsed Presbyterian
Website	BobBrown.org.au

Robert James "Bob" Brown (born 27 December 1944) is an Australian senator and former Parliamentary Leader of the Australian Greens. He was the first openly gay member of the Parliament of Australia, and the first openly gay leader of an Australian political party. Brown was elected to the Australian Senate on the Tasmanian Greens ticket, joining with sitting Greens Western Australia senator Dee Margetts to form the first group of Australian Greens senators following the 1996 federal election. He was re-elected in 2001 and again in 2007.

While serving in the Tasmanian parliament, Brown successfully campaigned for a large increase in the protected wilderness areas. Brown led the Australian Greens from the party's foundation in 1992 until April 2012, a period in which polls grew to around 10% at state and federal levels (13.9% of the primary vote in 2010).^[1] From 2002 to 2004 when minor parties held the balance of power in the Senate, Brown became a well-recognised politician. In October 2003 Brown was the subject of international media interest when he was suspended from the parliament for interjecting during an address by United States president George W. Bush.

On 13 April 2012, Brown resigned as leader of the Greens and indicated his intention to resign from the Senate in June.^[2]

Early life[link]

Brown was born in Oberon, New South Wales, one of twins^[3] and attended Trunkey Public School and Blacktown Boys High School. In his senior year he was elected school captain. After graduating, he enrolled in medicine at Sydney University where he obtained a Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery degree. He practised medicine for a time at the Royal Canberra Hospital. During his tenure at the hospital he and other senior medical staff took a pacifist stance by refusing to certify young men who did not wish to fight in the Vietnam War as fit to be conscripted.^[4] He then worked as a resident at Darwin and Alice Springs hospitals. At the latter post he met John Hawkins, a surgeon who had kayaked rivers in Tasmania.^[4] He travelled to London in 1970 and worked at Hounslow Cottage Hospital and St Mary Abbott's Hospital in South Kensington.^[5]

Brown moved to Tasmania in 1972 and worked as a medical general practitioner in Launceston. He soon became involved in the state's environmental movement, in particular the campaign to save Lake Pedder. By 1972 he was a member of the newly formed United Tasmania Group, Australia's first "green" party.^[6] In a newspaper interview at this time, Brown announced that he had a gay partner^[7] in order to highlight discrimination and encourage law reform as homosexual activity was a crime in Tasmania at the time.^[7]

In 1976 he fasted for a week on top of Mt Wellington in protest against the arrival at Hobart of the nuclear powered warship USS Enterprise.^[8]

State politics[link]

In 1978 Brown was appointed director of the Tasmanian Wilderness Society. In the late 1970s he emerged as a leader of the campaign to prevent construction of the Franklin Dam, which would have drowned the Franklin River valley as part of a hydroelectricity project. Brown was among the 1500 people arrested while protesting during the campaign. He subsequently spent 19 days in Hobart's Risdon Prison. On the day of his release in 1983, he became a member of Tasmania's parliament for the House of Assembly seat of Denison after the Democrats MP Norm Sanders resigned to successfully stand for the Australian Senate; Brown was elected to replace him on a countback.^[9] The Franklin campaign was a success after Federal government intervention protected the Franklin River in 1983.

During his first term of office, Brown introduced a wide range of private member's initiatives, which include freedom of information, death with dignity, lowering parliamentary salaries, gay law reform, banning the battery-hen industry and advocation for nuclear free Tasmania. His 1987 bill to ban semi-automatic guns was voted down by both Liberal and Labor members of Tasmania's House of Assembly, nine years before the Port Arthur massacre resulted in a successful federal Liberal bid to achieve the same results.

In 1989 Tasmania's system of proportional representation allowed the Greens to win five out of 35 seats in the Tasmanian House of Assembly and Brown became their leader.^{[footnote 1]} He agreed to support a minority Labor Party government, on the basis of a negotiated Accord (signed by Michael Field and Bob Brown) in which the Green independents agreed to support the budget but not motions of no confidence, and the ALP agreed to develop a more open parliamentary process, to consult on departmental appointments, provide a legislative research service, parity in parliamentary staffing and a reform agenda which included equal opportunities, freedom of information, national parks protection and public disclosure of bulk power contracts and royalties from mining companies.^[10] This agreement, however, broke down over forestry issues in 1992. In 1993 Brown resigned from the House of Assembly and stood unsuccessfully for the federal House of Representatives.

Federal politics[link]

Bob Brown lays out the Green's climate change policies in the lead-up to the 2007 federal election

Bob Brown at a climate change rally in Melbourne on 5 July 2008

Adam Bandt, Brian Walters and Bob Brown during the campaign for the Victorian state election, 2010

Greg Barber, Bob Brown and Brian Walters attending a protest rally in Melbourne in 2010

Senator Bob Brown with Richard Di Natale in Melbourne during the campaign of the Australian federal election, 2010

Senator Bob Brown in 2007

Brown was elected to the Australian Senate for Tasmania in 1996, and was an outspoken voice in opposition to the conservative government of John Howard, and in support of green and human rights issues, including international issues such as Tibet, East Timor and West Papua. He also introduced bills for constitutional reform, forest protection, to block radioactive waste dumping, to ban mandatory sentencing of Aboriginal children, to prohibit the use of cluster munitions and for greenhouse abatement.

At the 2001 federal election Brown was re-elected to the Senate with a greatly increased vote, and was outspoken on Prime Minister John Howard's refusal to allow 438 asylum seekers (mostly from Afghanistan) to land on Christmas Island after they had been rescued from their sinking boat in the Indian Ocean by the MV Tampa, a Norwegian freighter. Brown was equally critical of Opposition Leader Kim Beazley's acquiescence to John Howard's stance on the Tampa incident.

Brown was particularly vocal in his opposition to Australian participation in the 2003 invasion of Iraq and became recognised as a leading voice for the anti-war/peace movement. When President Bush visited Canberra on 23 October 2003, Brown and fellow Senator Kerry Nettle interjected during his address to a joint sitting of the two Houses of Parliament.^[11] During Bush's speech Brown and Nettle wore signs referring to David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib, two Australian citizens held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, at that time (Habib was later released without charge and Hicks served a prison term for providing material support for terrorism), following their apprehension by United States forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan respectively. Bush accepted the interjections with good humour but the Speaker of the House, Neil Andrew formally "named" Brown and Nettle. This meant that they were both suspended from the Parliament for 24 hours which prevented them from being present during a similar address from Chinese President Hu Jintao the next day. After the speech, however, Brown shook Bush's hand.

Brown opposed the Howard Government's amendments to the Marriage Act in 2004, stating that "Mr Howard should relax and accept gay marriages as part of the future's social fabric".^[12]

In December 2004, forestry and export woodchip company Gunns Limited attempted to sue Brown and others for $6.3 million, in an action which media reports say related to "ongoing damaging campaigns and activities" against the company. The original Statement of Claim issued by Gunns was struck out by the Supreme Court and costs were awarded against Gunns for the initial proceedings. Gunns ultimately failed with the company finally dropping all claims against Brown on 13 December 2006^[13] while continuing its case against others including The Wilderness Society.

Brown was formally elected as the first Federal Parliamentary Leader of The Greens on 28 November 2005,^[14] following almost a decade of service as de facto leader since his election to the Senate in 1996.

In February 2007, the Tasmanian State Government and the Australian Federal Government responded by changing the text of the State's Regional Forest Agreement. New clauses make it clear that the word 'protection' relates only to whether the two respective governments deem a species to be protected rather than the meaning of the word being based on actual evidence of such.

In early 2007, Brown attracted scorn from sections of the media and the major political parties for his proposal to commit to a plan within three years, that would eventually see the banning of coal exports.^[15] Brown described coal exports as the "energy industry's heroin habit" and stated that the export of alternative technologies should be the priority.^[16]

Brown was re-elected in the 2007 federal election. He announced his intention to stand again at the Greens National Conference in November 2005.

Following his re-election and that of the new Labor Government, Brown called on the new Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, to set fixed carbon targets immediately, and to announce their levels at the upcoming United Nations Bali Climate Change Conference in December 2007, continuing his climate campaigning, and saying that it was "obvious" what the outcome would be if Australia was to not set carbon emissions goals.^[17]

In 2005, Brown brought a legal case against Forestry Tasmania in the Federal Court, in an attempt to protect Tasmania's Wielangta forest from clearfell logging. The 1997 Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) exempted logging operations from endangered species laws but required the protection of endangered species. Bob Brown brought a case against Forestry Tasmania citing threats to endangered species like the Swift parrot and Wielangta Stag Beetle.^[18] In December 2006, Judge Shane Marshall awarded the case in Brown's favour.^[19] On appeal to the full bench of the Federal Court level, the case was lost, without rejecting the earlier judgement that logging would further endanger these species. In May 2008 the High Court denied leave to appeal that decision after the wording of the RFA was changed.^[20]

Brown was ordered to pay $240,000 to Forestry Tasmania, which he said he could not afford to pay. Failure to pay would have resulted in bankruptcy proceedings which would have cost Brown his Senate seat.^[21] Brown had earlier rejected a settlement offer from Forestry Tasmania that would have required him to have only paid $200,000 of the costs he had incurred.^[22] On 9 June 2009, Australian entrepreneur Dick Smith came to Brown's rescue with a promise to bail him out.^[23] Pledges for support from over 1,000 donors covered Brown's legal bill within a few days of his announcement.^[24]

In 2011, after the 2010–2011 Queensland floods Brown drew criticism for suggesting that half the Mineral Resource Rent Tax be allocated to future natural catastrophes.^[25] He made comments to the effect that climate change, specifically the impact on climate from the mining sector should be held at least partially responsible for the flooding.

On 24 March 2012, at the 40th anniversary of the establishment of the Tasmanian Greens,^[26] Senator Bob Brown warned^[27] about possible degradation of the Earth and the impact that could have on future generations.^[28] As a possible approach to pre-empting this he proposed a Global Parliament. He was met with a standing ovation. The then deputy leader Christine Milne said it was "a very inspiring speech".^[29] There was criticism of his approach.^[30] At the Global Greens Conference in Dakar, Senegal Africa, 1 April 2012, Bob Brown advocated that there be established a "global parliament" where "every citizen should have an equal say". The final resolution supported by the Australian Greens and others, was passed.^[31] Subsequently, on the ABC Q&A program Bob Brown said, "I’ve never called for world Government. You have been reading the Murdoch press."^[32]

On Friday 13 April 2012, Senator Brown resigned as leader of the Greens and announced that he will be resigning from the Senate in June when his replacement is available. His deputy Senator Christine Milne became Greens leader and federal Melbourne MP Adam Bandt became Greens deputy leader.^[33] The replacement was selected, and named as Peter Whish-Wilson, who had formerly stood for the Greens.^[34]

Personal life[link]

Brown lives in Hobart with his long-time partner, Paul Thomas, a farmer and activist whom he met in 1996.^[35][36]

Brown was the founder, in 1990, of the Australian Bush Heritage Fund, now Bush Heritage Australia, a non-profit environmental organisation dedicated to purchasing and preserving Australian bushland. He was President of the organisation until 1996.^[37] On 20 March 2011 Brown donated a 14-hectare (35-acre) property and house he had owned for 38 years to Bush Heritage Australia. The property is located 47 kilometres (29 miles) south-west of Launceston, Tasmania, in the Liffey Valley. According to Australian Geographic, it is a site of historic and symbolic significance.^[38]

Brown describes himself as a "lapsed Presbyterian".^[39]

In an interview with Richard Fidler on ABC radio, Nigel Brennan, an Australian photojournalist who was kidnapped in Somalia and held hostage for 462 days, revealed Brown had contributed $100,000 of his own money to help pay the ransom for his release. It was also revealed that Brown contacted Australian businessman Dick Smith asking that he also contributed funds towards the release of Brennan^[40] Brennan, who was released in November 2009, also stated in this interview that Brown had to borrow this money, an assertion also made in various media outlets at the time of Brennan's release.^[41][42] In the same interview, Brennan notes that in contrast to Brown's compassion, the Australian government seemed unconcerned with his welfare, with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd dismissing his mother's anxiety at having her son released because she wasn't showing Rudd the level of respect he deemed acceptable.^{[citation needed]}

Publications[link]

Brown has published several books including Wild Rivers (1983), Lake Pedder (1986), Tarkine Trails (1994), The Greens (1996) (with Peter Singer), Memo For A Saner World (2004), Valley of the Giants (2004), Tasmania's Recherche Bay (2005), Earth (2009) and In Balfour Street (2010)^[43] In 2004 James Norman published the first authorised biography of Brown, entitled Bob Brown: A Gentle Revolutionary.

Awards[link]

Bob Brown has received the following awards:

• The Australian newspaper ‘Australian of the Year’ (1983)^[44]
• IUCN Packard Award (1984)^[45]
• UNEP Global 500 Roll of Honour (1987)^[46]
• Goldman Environmental Prize (1990)^[47]
• MAPW Distinguished Physician Award (1990)^[48]
• BBC Wildlife magazine ‘World's Most Inspiring Politician’ (1996)^[49]
• National Trust Australian National Treasure (1998)
• Rainforest Action Network Environmental Hero (2006)^[50]
• Australian Peace Prize (2009)^[51]
• Australian Humanist of the Year (2010)^[52]

References[link]

1. Thompson, Peter (1984). Bob Brown of the Franklin River. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. ISBN 0-86861-596-X. 
2. "Biography for BROWN, Robert (Bob) James". Parliament of Australia. 28 June 2011. http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FQD4%22. Retrieved 1 July 2011. 

Notes[link]

1. ↑ In 1989, the Greens did not have formal leadership positions, but Brown's official senate biography lists his leadership of the state party from 1989-1993 as his first parliamentary party position.

Further reading[link]

• Armstrong, Lance J.E. (1997). Good God, He's Green! A History of Tasmanian Politics 1989–1996. Wahroonga, N.S.W., Pacific Law Press. ISBN 1-875192-08-5
• Lines, William J. (2006) Patriots : defending Australia's natural heritage St Lucia, Qld. : University of Queensland Press, 2006. ISBN 0-7022-3554-7

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Bob Brown

• Brown's official website
• Brown's parliamentary website
• Brown's photographic exhibition to raise raising money to pay for the court challenge against logging the Wielangta Forest
• Brown's campaign to challenge logging in the Wielangta Forest
• Senator Bob Brown's YouTube Channel
• Bob Brown's conference talks on SlowTV

v t e Anti-nuclear movement in Australia Organisations and groups Australian Conservation Foundation Campaign Against Nuclear Energy Friends of the Earth Australia Greenpeace Australia Pacific Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta Mineral Policy Institute Peace Organisation of Australia The Australia Institute The Wilderness Society People Dorothy Auchterlonie David Bradbury (filmmaker) Eileen Kampakuta Brown Bob Brown Kevin Buzzacott Helen Caldicott Ian Cohen Mark Diesendorf Jim Falk Peter Garrett Jim Green (activist) Margaret Holmes Jacqui Katona Sandra Kanck Ian Lowe Scott Ludlam Yvonne Margarula Dee Margetts Jillian Marsh Brian Martin (professor) Kerry Nettle Nancy Shelley Jo Vallentine Patrick White Stuart White Eileen Wani Wingfield Books Britain, Australia and the Bomb Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy Maralinga: Australia’s Nuclear Waste Cover-up Reaction Time: Climate Change and the Nuclear Option See also Australian Uranium Association Clean Energy Future Group List of Australian inquiries into uranium mining Lists of nuclear disasters and radioactive incidents Nuclear power in Australia Nuclear weapons tests in Australia Renewable energy commercialization Renewable energy in Australia Say Yes demonstrations Uranium mining in Australia Uranium mining in Kakadu National Park

Senator Nick Xenophon
Senator for South Australia
Incumbent
Assumed office 1 July 2008
Member of the South Australian Legislative Council
In office 11 October 1997 – 15 October 2007
Personal details
Born	(1959-01-29) 29 January 1959 (age 53) Adelaide, South Australia, Australia[1]
Nationality	Australian
Political party	Independent
Website	www.nickxenophon.com.au

Nicholas "Nick" Xenophon^[2] (born Nicholas Xenophou 29 January 1959) is a South Australian barrister, anti-gambling campaigner and politician. He attended Prince Alfred College, and studied law at the University of Adelaide, attaining his Bachelor of Laws in 1981. Xenophon established and became principal of his own law firm, Xenophon & Co. in 1984. Between 1994 and 1997 he served as president of the South Australian branch of the Australian Plaintiff Lawyers' Association.

No Pokies, the name of his independent ticket in the South Australian Legislative Council, garnered 2.9 percent of the statewide vote at the 1997 state election electing himself on preferences, and 20.5 percent at the 2006 election (or 2.5 quotas), which was unexpected by political commentators. He was elected to the Australian Senate at the 2007 federal election, receiving 14.8 percent. This was still over one full Senate quota, gaining election without the need for preferences. Xenophon shared the balance of power with the Greens and Family First during the 2008–11 Senate parliamentary session, with the Greens holding the sole balance of power since July 2011. Whilst his original 1997 platform centred on anti-pokies, he has since become an advocate in many other areas. Xenophon has been reported in the media as "left-of-centre",^[3] while Hansard reveals that Xenophon and the Greens have found common ground on a number of issues.^[4]

Education and legal career[link]

Xenophon attended Prince Alfred College and studied law at the University of Adelaide, completing his Bachelor of Laws in 1981. While at University he was for a period a member of the Young Liberals, who helped him secure the editorship of the student newspaper On Dit through vote-rigging, an incident Xenophon says he regrets and helped turned him off party politics.^[2] In 1984, he established and became principal of his own law firm, Xenophon & Co., located in Paradise, South Australia, which deals solely with workers compensation and personal injury claims.^[5][6] In this field he became successful, and between 1994 and 1997 he served as president of the South Australian branch of the Australian Plaintiff Lawyers' Association.^[7] After legislation was passed in 1992 by the Bannon Labor government that saw the introduction of poker machines (pokies) into South Australia in 1993, the increased incidence of problem gambling came to Xenophon's attention in his legal practice.^[8][9][10]

Parliamentary career[link]

South Australian Legislative Council[link]

At the 1997 state election, Xenophon stood for the South Australian Legislative Council under an Independent No Pokies ticket, advocating the reduction and abolition of poker machines (colloquially known as "pokies"). He received a vote of 2.86 percent, a statewide total of 25,630 votes – much less than the 8.33 per cent needed to be elected in his own right – but by receiving a large number of preferences first from microparties and then from Grey Power, he achieved 1.08 quotas and was elected.^[11] This made Xenophon the first Independent elected to the Legislative Council in 60 years.^[2]

Following the 1997 election, the Olsen Liberal government required the support of an additional two non-Liberal upper house members in order to pass legislation, with the Australian Democrats retaining the balance of power on three seats. However, defectors from Labor in the upper house, Terry Cameron and Trevor Crothers, often brought Xenophon in to play. In 1998, Xenophon voted with Cameron and the government to proceed with the second reading of the ETSA power sale bill.^[12][13] The bill became law when Cameron and Crothers voted with the Liberal government.^[14] Following the election of the Rann Labor government at the 2002 state election, the government required an additional five non-Labor upper house members to pass legislation, giving a shared balance of power to the Democrats on three seats, incumbent independents Xenophon and Cameron, with the Family First Party winning their first seat.

Xenophon was an activist for a range of issues apart from the elimination of poker machines, speaking out on consumer rights, essential services, the environment, taxation, and perks for politicians.^[6] Xenophon was also vocal in the Eugene McGee hit-run affair, becoming an advocate for the victim's wife, with public opinion eventually forcing the Kapunda Road Royal Commission that led to harsher laws for hit-run offences.^[15]

Xenophon is best known for his many media-friendly publicity stunts that have gained him both deep respect and ardent criticism.^[9][16] At the 2006 state election, he ran an aggressive campaign and attracted considerable publicity through a range of imaginative stunts, including riding a model locomotive "gravy train" outside Parliament House to protest MPs' superannuation entitlements, parading along Rundle Mall wearing a sandwich board to advertise his campaign, and bringing a small goat to Parliament urging voters not to "kid around" with their vote.^[17][18] Despite media speculation that he would struggle to be re-elected due to the major parties preferencing against him, he attracted sufficient funding and volunteers to staff most state booths on polling day.^[19] He received 190,958 first preferences or 20.51 per cent of the total vote, enough to not only be re-elected himself, but also to elect the second No Pokies candidate, Ann Bressington.^[20][21] His total was 5.46 per cent less than the Liberal Party, and he outpolled the Liberals in some booths, including the entire electoral district of Enfield.^[22] Political analysts said Xenophon's vote at the election was drawn almost equally from the two major parties,^[23] and that Xenophon had become the new "third force" in South Australian politics.^[24] With the Labor government requiring four non-Labor upper house members to pass legislation, No Pokies on two seats shared the balance of power with Family First on two seats, the Democrats on one seat, with the SA Greens winning their first seat.

Australian Senate[link]

Election campaign[link]

On 11 October 2007, Xenophon called a press conference at the Adelaide Zoo in front of the giraffe enclosure, declaring he would "stick his neck out for South Australia" by announcing his resignation from the South Australian Legislative Council in an attempt to gain election to the Australian Senate at the 2007 federal election.^[25] His platform consisted of anti-gambling and pro-consumer protection measures, attention to the water crisis affecting the Murray River, ratifying Kyoto, opposition against a "decrease in state rights", and opposition to WorkChoices.^[23][26][27]

Following the announcement, ABC election analyst Antony Green predicted that Xenophon would easily win a seat, with Centrebet speculating he would begin on a favourable $1.50 for and $2.70 against. Nick Minchin, a Liberal senator from South Australia and a leader of the party's right faction,^[28] urged people not to vote for Mr Xenophon.^[29] Xenophon attracted preferences from minor parties such as the Greens, Democrats and Family First, whose preferences would be crucial were he to win less than 14.3% of the vote.^[30] Due to differences between federal and state electoral laws, Xenophon's name did not appear above the line on the ticket, and he was represented only by the letter "S" above the line, with voters having to search for his details.^[31]

As Xenophon had vacated his Legislative Council seat to run for the Senate, a joint sitting of the South Australian parliament was convened for 21 November 2007 to select Xenophon's replacement. The Rann Labor government agreed to Xenophon's choice of former valuer-general John Darley, who had stood as the third candidate on Xenophon's ticket in 2006.^[32] During the joint sitting convened to confirm the nomination, Ann Bressington criticised Xenophon, questioning his integrity and suitability for federal parliament, suggesting that his "anti-politician" image was more spin than reality.^[33] She also said Xenophon had demanded she contribute $50,000 towards campaign expenses at the 2006 state election. Xenophon said in response that he was "shocked and hurt" and "deeply upset" that she had failed to share her concerns with him in person, saying "privately and publicly, I have been very supportive of her."^[34] Some people whose causes Xenophon had championed also came forward to defend Xenophon. Di Gilcrist, whose husband's hit and run death resulted in the Kapunda Road Royal Commission, was vocal in her rejection of Bressington's comments. In an interview the following day, Ms Gilcrist said "based on my experience not only as a victim who's dealt with Nick but also somebody who's worked with Nick and his office over the last two campaigns and in between, Nick is passionate and he cares and he is empathetic. And he is truly committed."^[33][35] Lower House Independent Kris Hanna also defended Xenophon, arguing Bressington had "obviously been out to do some damage" and injure Xenophon's chances of being elected to the Senate.^[33]

During the campaign, Xenophon also complained to the Australian Electoral Commission about political advertisements which falsely claimed he would not support rolling back the unpopular WorkChoices laws if elected.^[36]

During the final days of the campaign, Xenophon executed his final campaign stunt – walking a large mule down Rundle Mall, allegedly to demonstrate his stubbornness.^[37] Xenophon received a total of 148,789 votes, representing 14.78% of enrolled electors. 30,054 of these – about one in five – voted below the line. Only the Labor and Liberal parties (each receiving about 35%) polled more votes.^[38][39]

2008–2011[link]

Nick Xenophon in September 2008.

Xenophon's addition to the Senate in mid-2008 resulted in him sharing the balance of power in the Senate with the Australian Greens on five seats and Family First on one seat, the Rudd Labor government requiring the support of all seven, or the opposition, to pass legislation. Xenophon's election was at the expense of a Liberal candidate, without his presence the Coalition may have retained a Senate majority. Xenophon indicated plans to work closely with coalition renegade Barnaby Joyce.^[40] Xenophon has been reported in the media as "left-of-centre",^[3] whilst Hansard revealed that Xenophon and the Greens find common ground on a number of issues.^[4]

In February 2009, the Rudd Government's $42 billion economic stimulus package struggled to see passage through the Senate. After some amendments, the package was supported by Labor, the Greens, and Family First, however Xenophon voted against the package. The package was reintroduced the next morning and this time Xenophon voted with it after some requests were agreed to by the Government. With Xenophon's support the package passed the Senate. Xenophon convinced the government to bring forward $900 million in Murray-Darling basin funds and other water projects, which included $500 million over three years for water buybacks, $200 million in water saving and water management grants for local communities, and $200 million in stormwater harvesting projects.^[41][42]

In a speech to the Senate on 17 November 2009, Xenophon labelled the Church of Scientology as a criminal organisation, making allegations of members experiencing blackmail, torture and violence, labour camps and forced imprisonment, and coerced abortions, echoing other criticisms of Scientology.^[43][44][45] Xenophon quoted from a letter he received written by Aaron Saxton, a whistleblower on Scientology who had previously served as a senior official within the organization in Australia and the United States.^[46] Kevin Rudd stated he shared some of Xenophon's concerns,^[47][48] and would consider the call for a parliamentary inquiry.^[49] The federal opposition were not so keen on an inquiry.^[50] State Crime Command of New South Wales Police confirmed the following day that they had received statements from Xenophon by seven former members, with investigations commencing.^[51] A request for a Senate inquiry was not successful, though the Greens voted with Xenophon in support of the proposal.^[52] After a subsequent Senate Committee investigation was carried out, a federal parliamentary committee of the Australian Senate recommended on 7 September 2010 that a charities commission be formed, with the purpose of investigating and monitoring transparency of charitable organizations.^[53] This recommendation received bipartisan support.^[53] Senator Xenophon commented on the report of the committee, "I believe reform is now inevitable. We can't continue to have business as usual when it comes to organisations that have been beyond any reasonable level of accountability."^[53] Xenophon emphasized the investigation began as a result of his concerns about Scientology, "This inquiry came about because of legislation I introduced for a public benefit test for religions and charities, and it was as a direct result of being approached by many victims of the Church of Scientology. Their evidence, their complaints played a key role in triggering this inquiry."^[53] In September 2011, Xenophon said he was disappointed with a Fair Work Ombudsman's final report into the Church of Scientology.^[54]

2011–current[link]

From July 2011, Xenophon lost his shared balance of power position, with the Greens taking the sole balance of power after a strong showing at the 2010 election. He nominates key issues he will pursue before he is up for re-election at the next Australian federal election as: gaming machine reforms, stopping palm oil from being sold in Australia and breaking up the supermarket duopoly, as well as better deals for Riverland irrigators in the Murray-Darling Basin rescue plan. He said his lack of power won't translate to a diminished voice... "Most of your influence comes from being able to influence the wider debate on an issue, and if you are successful, you can actually change the way the major parties vote. That's what I have done for the past three years and I will continue to do that. I can honestly say I plan to be a pesky, persistent bastard in and out of the Senate for the next three years".^[55][56]

Xenophon's anti-pokies stance was bolstered when independent Andrew Wilkie was elected to the federal lower house seat of Denison at the 2010 election. Wilkie was one of four crossbenchers who supported the Gillard Labor minority government following the hung parliament result. Wilkie campaigned heavily against pokies at the election and immediately began forging ties with Xenophon as soon as it was apparent that he was elected.^[57] Wilkie claims that problem gamblers in Australia lose $5 billion each year on pokies.^[58] In exchange for Wilkie's support, the Labor government are legislating for mandatory "pre-commitment" technology which would require people using high-bet machines to pre-commit how much they are willing to bet on a machine before they begin to play,^[59] as well as introducing safer $1 maximum bet per spin machines, which would not require pre-commitment.^[60] The plan came under sustained attack from sporting clubs and various businesses which financially benefit from poker machine use.^[61] Xenophon accused them of misrepresenting plans and creating hype.^[62] The Abbott Coalition opposes the plans, with Abbott saying "it is not Liberal Party policy" and it will be "expensive and ineffective." According to polling, the Labor government's plans are supported by a clear majority of voters across the spectrum.^[63] AFL boss Andrew Demetriou rejected suggestions that the AFL was joining Clubs Australia in their media campaign.^[64][65] Clubs Australia created www.WontWorkWillHurt.com.au as part of their campaign.^[66] Commentators from the Nine Network gave planned political arguments without disclosure during commentary of a Semi-Final NRL game, prompting the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to investigate, stating "Channel Nine broadcast political material without adequately identifying it as such during the NRL first preliminary final". One of the accused commentators stated that the remarks were a "directive from up top that it be read by at least somebody". Investigations are predicted to take months.^{[67][68][69][70]} GetUp attempted to counter the anti-pre-commitment campaign by running political commercials during the NRL grand final.^[71][72] Xenophon created a website, www.ItsABigFatLie.com.au, in attempts to counter the attacks.^[73] Clubs Australia accidentally posted private content on their website which indicated that clubs are purposely exaggerating the impact of the pre-commitment plans.^[74] The Greens proposed a modification of the plan to remove the pre-commitment and simply institute the $1 bet limit side of the plan. Gillard and Wilkie indicated they are open to the change. Clubs Australia, which had so far amassed a $40 million federal election "warchest" including $250,000 from Woolworths, claimed it would do even more harm to clubs.^[75]

In September 2011, Xenophon controversially used parliamentary privilege to accuse a South Australian Catholic priest of rape, in regard to accusations made about events that occurred in the 1960s. Monsignor David Cappo and the Archbishop of Adelaide, Philip Wilson, were accused of failing to properly investigate the allegations when made in 2007. All three men deny the Senator's claims. Xenophon decided to use parliamentary privilege after receiving an "unsatisfactory" response from the Church when advising them of his intentions and ultimatum. Cappo, introduced by Mike Rann early in his premiership as South Australia's head of his Social Inclusion unit, was set to take on a national role by Prime Minister Julia Gillard. Due to the claims, Cappo stepped down from the new position after just one week, as well as from the Social Inclusion Board.^{[76][77][78][79][80]} Several days later, after high-level media coverage, Xenophon indicated he might not have used parliamentary privilege had he known the person he accused was about to take a period of leave.^[81]

Xenophon voted against the Clean Energy Bill in November 2011. The carbon tax passed with the Labor government receiving Green support for the legislation in the Senate.^[82][83]

References[link]