The OO, without the slightest hint of self-parody, has indulged itself in an orgy of hagiography for new Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull, including the following offering from Paul Kelly:
Malcolm Turnbull is a natural leader: bold, clever and visionary… Turnbull fought a heroic campaign to win the republic. In the end he was damned by many republicans, none of whom made anything approaching Turnbull’s contribution and who made the absurd claim that Turnbull had been the architect of defeat (unlike those who actually supported the monarchy).
Students of 20th century history know that it is in the nature of personality cults to rewrite history. However, I cannot allow Kelly’s attempt to exonerate Turnbull’s misleadership of the Australian Republican Movement (admittedly, an organisation chockfull of followers eager to be misled) to go unanswered, not least because Turnbull’s “heroism” included, in November 1997, a gratuitous smear in the national media of a 19 year old Brisbane university student who had the temerity to run for election to the 1998 Constitutional Convention on an alternative republican ticket.
The Australian of 15 November 1997 quoted Turnbull thus:
“I can promise you right now that the monarchists will get a larger number of seats at the convention than they get votes in the ballot – simply because there will be a number of candidates elected on preferences from these essentially foolish groups posing as republicans.
“Most of the groups don’t represent any more people than their actual candidates, and people will be wasting their votes if they vote for them.”
Mr Turnbull singled out the A Just Republic group, which directs its preferences to [Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy] and which has at least four members of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party standing on its Queensland ticket.
The facts of the matter were as follows:
1. There was not a single A Just Republic Ticket in the Queensland ballot for the Constitutional Convention. There was a Greens for a Just Republic Ticket and a Women for a Just Republic Ticket.
2. Neither of these tickets included members of One Nation.
3. Neither of these tickets directed preferences to the ACM.
4. All three members of the Women for a Just Republic ticket were prominent feminist public figures who were generally known to be anything but sympathetic to One Nation.
5. Similarly, the first two candidates on the Greens for a Just Republic ticket (Libby Connors and Greg George) were and are well known progressive activists who nobody could seriously suspect of One Nation sympathies.
6. The third candidate of the Greens for a Just Republic ticket was Alexandra Guild, who at the time was a student in one of my Environmental Studies classes at Griffith University, and was not a well known public figure. Therefore, if Turnbull’s One Nation smear was to stick to anyone, it was most likely to stick to Alexandra.
I don’t take kindly to seeing my students smeared in the national media as racists and fascists. Accordingly I wrote to the Australian pointing out the foregoing facts, and stating that Turnbull’s comments indicated that he and the ARM presumed that they had a divine right to rule Australian republicanism. The letter was not printed.
The following Monday, I encountered a prominent ARM activist at Griffith and spoke to her in simliar terms about Turnbull’s smear of Alexandra. She laughed in my face and insisted it was true, quoting a prominent Labor activist who is now a Labor Senator as an authoritative source of her information.
The Australian subsequently published a correction of Turnbull’s comments. However, no retraction, much less an apology, was ever forthcoming from Turnbull himself (nor, for that matter, from the ARM or its Griffith gopher).
Such is the heroism of Malcolm Turnbull – failed messiah of the Stupid Cult of Minimalist Republicanism, and unrepentant slanderer of a young republican student. That Paul Kelly still doesn’t understand how this kind of “heroism” contributed to the defeat of the 1999 referendum reflects poorly on his analytical abilities.
And to think I had fallen for the mythology as I was about to launch my support group for rich powerful white men who used to be tenants.
Paul, there was enough fault and stupidity in the republican movement to lose three referendums. It’s ancient history in any case.
Turnbull’s undoing will be his ego. Recently he was in the lift in Parliament House when it stopped and an attractive young woman got in.
She said to him, “Mr Turnbull”.
He says, “Yes?”
“I’d very much like to give you a blow job”, she says.
He replies “That’s all very well, but what’s in it for me?”
Paul, I agree that Turnbull’s actions, in this case, sound indefensible.
However, for what it’s worth, I don’t think minimalist republicanism (however badly sold it was) is stupid. Greg Craven’s analysis – that popular election is destined to get up in a plebiscite, and down at a referendum – may be unpalatable, but it’s all too believable.
Robert, my phrase was “the Stupid Cult of Minimalist Republicanism”, not “the Cult of Stupid Minimalist Republicanism”. It was the cult, not minimalist republicanism, which was stupid.
Why do I have this sinking feeling that we are about to witness our second Latham in a decade??
Bravo Paul, well said.
That he would gratuitously smear doesn’t surprise.
The man wrecks much of what he touches.
Does not know the meaning of community consultation.
Thinks that he can bully electorates to get what he wants.
The NSW Northern Rivers has had Turnbull’s measure since he tried his ‘water raid’ in 2006-07.
I guess the interesting thing about Turnbull is that he managed to single handely (almost) derail the inevitable creation of a republic by pursing his ‘insiders’ model. The general proposition was something like this..The average yoik is too stupid to directly elect the leader of a republic, we have to save them from themselves by coralling it to a decision that the liberal and labour parties endorse… thus ensuring any candidate that is not given the tick by the lib/lab club is automatically dead before they start. This is the kind of thinking that saw Tasmanian Liberal and Labor unite to screw democracy in Tasmania because of their fear of the greens holding the balance of power. I’m a lifelong republican but reject the notion that I’m too stupid to directly elect a president (or whatever) and that it somehow might be ‘politicised’ ooo scary, we mustn’t let it be politicised-what a load of bollocks, I voted against it and I would again. The fact that Mal and his ARM mates handed the monarchists a victory they would never otherwise have got is entirely their own fault. Anyway as some commentators pointed out what is the point of all the true believer rhetoric about a republic when the current Liberal and Labour parties can’t bring themselves to even own up to their duty to regulate the business sector-its a classic Keating position-get all misty eyed about true believer mythology while busily ceding democratic influence on the economy as fast as you can to the new corporate Princes. You can see it now in the climate change debate-We are about to see the grotesque spectacle of taxpayers featherbedding our worst polluting industries on the road to a completely inadequate 2020 pollution target because governent can’t bring itself to do what the overwhelming majority of people want and regulate for the national and public interest and never mind if business gets grumpy. Forget the republic-our sovereignty was sold to large coporations by labour and liberal years ago-we need to get it back and having a Malcolm and Kevin approved president doesn’t change that.
Jack it has nothing to do with thinking average people are stupid. What it is about is that a popularly elected President would then feel he has a right to do things and push his agenda because he was elected by the public. Our present system relies on the head of state being impartial and apolitical.
Its got nothing to do with thinking parliament is smarter than the public.
I think Turnbull did make quite a significant contribution in trying to get the republic over the line, but Kelly is being disingenuous if he is asserting that Turnbull did not in some ways contribute to its ultimate failure back then.
In any case, it should be interesting to see how the republican debate develops now that both the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader support moves towards an Australian republic.
No worries Paul, sorry I misunderstood.
On the central point – that the incident you’re referring to reflects extremely poorly on Turnbull – you’re 100% right.
Hi Stephen
With the greatest respect its got everthing to do with the labor and liberal clique worrying about maintaining a veto over presidential candidates (or whatever other term they want to call the figurehead of a republic). And do you for one minute think that people only think they can push an agenda because they are elected. What about corporate Australia? I never voted for any of them yet they have by far the greatest influence individually and collectively over Australian politics of any group- in practice probably more effective influence than the parliement-you don’t have to be elected to push an agenda. Just ask John Kerr. Can you imagine for example a person who is opposed to their views on exporting uranium to dangerous nuclear states getting up under the liberal/labor veto model you appear to be supporting? Can you imagine the major party dominated parliement views on someone who might have campaigned for proportional representation in the lower house getting up? How do you think they would like it if Bob Brown ran for the job?? You aren’t seriously suggesting that the Irish people can successfully elect presidents for around 80 years but we can’t are you? Where is the problem with the (get ready for dramatic music and boo hiss sounds)’politics’ in the Irish presidency? In fact they have had some of the most respected public figures nationally and internationally as presidents bringing great dignity and respect to the position and to the nation. I just don’t get it as to the argument that the republic is somehow a non-political issue. If its some drone picked by the liberal and labor parties then of course its political and shuts out the growing numbers of people who are sick of the both of the major parties. This is just another way of trying to reward status quo in Australian politics but punish any new developments. That people can actually argue that electing a head of state is too political aboslutely beggars belief. Are you seriously suggesting that simply swallowing the appointment of the government and opposition of the day as proposed by the Malcolm and Kevin crowd is not political? If you want the position to have no political power then give it none-codify the role of the president to be simply ceremonial-Im fine with that although why we have to pay so much money for a ribbon cutter is beyond me. But don’t insult our intelligence by suggesting that letting us plebs vote for someone somehow lets us dabble in the nasty world of politics (that obviously needs to be run by some otherwise defined bunch of smart people) and appointment by parliament doesn’t.
Go to Ireland, have a pint of the black stuff with the locals, see the shocking results of letting someone who is not a major party poodle into the presidential job and then come back and explain to me why the evil art of politics (wash my mouth out) will be too much for us to handle. Irish presidents have involved themselves far more in civic society than simply ribbon cutting-it hasn’t resulted in the mob ransacking the palaces and hanging the nobles over there (or whatever precisely it is that a non-drone president scares you about) In the meantime Im suremonarchists will be rubbing their hands together and hoping that Mal and Kev stick to trying to make sure the average person has little or no say over a future presidential candidate. But how about this-lets defer our argy bargry over the dangerous peoples president model vs the we know whats good for you labor liberal version until we fix climate change. Now THERES an issue that is actually worth getting passionate and political about.
Yours in reckless support of people engaging in …(tremble) .. politics
Jack
What has the OZ changed horses midstream,is Costello out ewith the bathwater,gad what next,Shamahan and Milne,swearing fidelity to Malcolm
Which is nowhere specified in the Constitution.
IMHO there is no way around the question of codifying the powers of the Head of State if the republic debate is to progress to a successful conclusion. If this could be done properly it would eliminate the only meritorious reason to hesitate before a republic with a directly elected HOS.
Why don’t we leave the GG in place, and make her the President’s representative? Then we elect the President, but then say he or she is bound by all of the conventions that bind the Queen. Brilliant!
BBB
That is a fucking brilliant idea BBB.
So absurdly appropriate. We might want to make those conventions law, but otherwise, tops.
Appropriately absurd, I mean.
Well, both work I guess.
Thanks FDB. To take the appropriately absurd a little further, I am calling it the “minimalist direct election” model.
BBB
Except that this would run against the public expectation of the role, the constitutional duties that would be codified, the traditions inherited from the current system, and the precedents set overseas in similar systems.
People who argue that a conflict between President and PM would be inevitable under a directly elected Presidency really need to explain why it hasn’t happened in Ireland or Portugal (2004 notwithstanding).
Very good idea, BBB.
However, I believe true credit ought to go to the former WA Premier Geoff Gallop, who thought of it first.
No, Gallop wanted to do away with the GG and The Queen, substitute a President for both and codify as necessary. It’d be better to keep the GG in place, a la McGarvie, and then throw direct election at a purely ceremonial figure. Then you can mostly avoid all this codification hullabaloo. To flesh it out, you could then go for an election model where a field of 5 or so presidential candidates is approved by a joint sitting and then put to the people.
Upshot: direct election of HOS, but almost zero chance of a mandate, much less a mandate that could be used, since the GG, appointed as usual by the PM and bound by all the usual conventions, is in the way.
Hence “minimalist direct election”.
BBB
Constitutions are high-risk documents as they are meant to form the structure of a polity indefinitely — for decades and centuries. You don’t just want it to work with current expectations, you want to avoid constitutional crisis as much as possible. A directly elected president, no matter how hedged in, has a mandate that an appointed GG does not. That is not small potatoes.
Oh The Australian has
put on a fine public relations spreadpublished a hard but fair portrayal of thenew opposition leader of this democracynext appointment to run NewsCorp.Straya.Buyitbuyitbuyit now..
Rupert and Malcolm
Sittin’ in a tree.
K-I-S-S-I-N-G
First come the shaft
Then comes the challenge
And then comes the tax breaks in the baby carriage.
.
Kevvie’s sweatin’ now. He’s sweatin’. Look at Kevvie sweat. He hasn’t been invited to a pyjama party at Cavan for two months! Don’t cry Kevvie! Stiff upper lip n’ all.
Turnbull fought the good fight on the republic and lost, it’s churlish to deny his contribution. There are many criticisms that can be made of him, working for grubs such as the Packers is one.
Grubs such as the Packers. Grubs! You filthy heathen communist who jyust signed his own death warrant. The Packers are fine upstanding citizens and great great great people. And very good looking to boot.
The OO? You will find more data in its proper context in a Phantom comic.
BBB, that was Gallop’s position back in 1999. But more recently (i.e. a coupla years ago, shortly before he resigned as Premier) he was touting the model you’ve described, with an elected President appointing a GG and the rest of the system kept as is.
Of course, nobody was really paying any attention to the republic issue at the time.
Let’s get practical.
Popular election to a job that doesn’t need any qualifications (except to be popular), won’t make you a rich, is as boring as hell and gives you no power to do anything – but you DO get to be the titular top dog/bitch – will consistently go to sportspeople, entertainers or wealthy self-seekers (can name a couple).
Not really the public’s fault. They just don’t know (or don’t get told) about anybody else.
Bring it on. Not.
He didn’t manage to come up with a snappy name for it though. You can have the credit for that.
Paul -
.
I don’t think your post demonstrates that Turnball leadership of the ARM was bad. More that he simply payed the usual power political games and deployed the rhetoric of ‘mainstreamers’ to ‘fringe elements’. Doubtless representing left wing candidates as One Nation supporters is bad form. However I’m not sure it’s bad form primarily because of the ‘smear’ involved (how many people would actually care) or because it’s just dopey. But in any event attacking also-rans is part of your job in politics he just did that. Okay he’s a liar but, um, he’s in parliament. They’re all fucking liars.
.
Turnball and others of the ARM did strike me as a bunch of self-important blowhards eager to to insert themselves in the history books. Mot to mention excluding other viewpoints thus aiding Howard’s divide-and-quash strategy. However they did contribute some things to the debate. There were a few books some edited by Wayne Hudson formally of GU and they seem more interesting nowadays then they did then.
I think the Republicans need to borrow some constitutional tips from William Burroughs’ Naked Lunch. The President should be elected, people should vote for some odious individual that is universally despised and put him or her in charge of baboon management.
.
Grouse.
Elected officials have mandates to fulfil their eletion promises, no more and no less. I am exceedingly confident that any Presidential candidate who campaigns on a basis of undermining the Parliamentary government will not be elected, so I see no risk of creating such a mandate.
And it is not just a matter of current expectations, it is a matter of conventions. Our current Constitution describes a GG with near unlimited powers. Of course that is not how it works due to the conventions that operate, despite them not being found within the document.
Similarly the powers of a PResident will be governed by the conventions that develop, arising largely from the predecessor conventions.
Oh, fair enough Tim. Smart guy that Gallop. Of course he probably thought about it for ages, whereas I pulled it out of my arse as a joke. So I’ve got that on him at least. And the snappy name of course.
BBB
But come to think of it, having an elected president, instead of the PM, appoint the GG is a stupid idea. So scratch the smart guy tag.
BBB
Great idea BBB,
It happens to be exactly the approach of the Copernican Republicans. It keeps the changes to the constitution to a minimum since the structure is the same that we have had since Federation – a HOS (The Queen at the moment or a directly elected Australian in a republic) and an appointed Representative of the HOS (the Governor General or perhaps Vice-President in a republic) who can exercise the Reserve Powers if need be. Such an elected HOS would not be in the position to sack the government.
See http://www.7gs.com/copernican
Perhaps the name Copernican puts people off…
http://www.republicaustralia.com.au
I am exceedingly confident that any Presidential candidate who campaigns on a basis of undermining the Parliamentary government will not be elected,
.
And I am pretty damn confident that any presidential candidate with a brain in the head who intends to undermine parliamentary governance will not be putting telling anybody before they get elected.
Probably right, BBB. I reckon the best approach is probably an outback running race, or ‘Survivor’ style reality show, to decide who gets to be President. Or GG, or whatever. In any case, whatever method we use, a Steve Irwin type will end up being head of state. But what’s so bad about that? After all, if the Yanks can have a moose-huntin’ gal from Alaska as VP, why not a Troy-Dann/Croc Dundee-style bullalo taming, roo shootin’ bloke for Oz PResident?
I’m not sold on the ‘politics as usual’ line, Adrien. It’s one thing to acknowledge the inherent potentialities for violence in the political as such; it’s quite another to extend that as some kind of quasi-justification for the likes of Turnbull being so careless (and potentially destructive) in how they characterise those who have no real platform or position to answer back. I think it speaks to an inability on Turnbull’s part to really recognise the scale of disparity, and thus also to a lack of judgement on his part. I wonder how Mr Turnbull would feel if his own daughter – an intelligent and politically active young woman of my own acquaintance – were misrepresented in a similar way.
Or perhaps I’m just overly sympathetic with Paul’s desire to stand up for his students. I feel increasingly that I would stake my own reputation on defending mine against similar casual misrepresentation by the (relatively) powerful.
It’s politics Klaus. The art of politics is the art of acquiring and maintaining power. That’s it. It’s not about what can be justified it’s about what you can get away with.
.
Unpleasant yes, and true. Sorry.
.
In any event Turnball’s bullying tactics don’t indicate that he failed to perform as leader of the ARM, quite the opposite.
Or perhaps I’m just overly sympathetic with Paul’s desire to stand up for his students.
.
Indeed. And well you should. The free speech ideal of liberalism isn’t adequately served by capitalism as we’ve known it thus far. And I really do wish that folks like Turnball would play at a higher level. After all he didn’t really need to do that did he?
.
But when Charles Bronson tells Jason Robards: They didn’t have dollars in dem days, Jason Robards speaks for us all when he replies: But sons of bitches? Yeah.
.
I think he’s an arsehole. But I’m glad the Libs’ve picked someone who doesn’t want to time travel the whole country back to The Sullivans for a change. And he’s got good taste which is, ahem, unusual in Canberra.
Well, as someone who is interested in phronesis as much as politics, I recoil at the idea of ‘pure politics’, and I think it is an imperative that politics is shifted from that axis. While there are certainly risks associated with attempting to make such a shift, it is riskier still to treat the divorce of the political from the broader terrain of the ethico-political as a fait accompli. Violence cannot be removed from politics, but we need to be able to assess the scale and form of the violence of politics.
I’m also skeptical of the claim that these particular forms of bullying represent ‘successful’ leadership, particularly in a context where that leadership did not lead to ‘success’. I believe Paul is reading the case as metonymic of Turnbull’s broader potentialities as a leader, and I have to endorse that reading.
“I think he’s an arsehole. But I’m glad the Libs’ve picked someone who doesn’t want to time travel the whole country back to The Sullivans for a change. And he’s got good taste which is, ahem, unusual in Canberra.”
This, on the other hand, is hard to disagree with.
Adrien, I must have missed something. Is ‘Turnball’ a joke?
Interesting stuff there, RobV. ‘Copernican’ is, as you suggest, a poor name. It’s too old and sciency and Polish.
Tim, Steve Irwin would have made a cracking head of state.
BBB
Adrien @36
Then there will be no question of the President having a mandate to oppose the PM.
It is of course possible for a directly elected President to flout convention and exercise their powers inappropriately. Certainly this possibility should be considered in designing the system.
It is of course possible for the same thing to happen in the current system.
The reality is that in an elected system, candidates are going to require party support, whether or not the parties actively run endorsed candidates, and the major parties will support only cadnidates that they consider safe.
Martin B.
“Then there will be no question of the President having a mandate to oppose the PM.”
The question, if that may be the case which I am not so sure of, is HOW an uppity President would dare to oppose the PM of the day. If, for example, Prince Charles were to assume the throne and become Australia’s HOS – a real possibility – what on earth could he do if he disagreed vehemently with the PM of the day in our current constitutional arrangements? Answer – nothing politically, but he would have the media focus as HOS to draw attention to issues he thinks the PM should be addressing. That is a very different kind of power. If he did this respectfully it would be effective political pressure but if he went too far or started making political demands he would be laughed at as if he were a fool. The HOS in our current constitutional monarchy has no real political power, and is bound by convention. And besides, what would we want from a HOS anyway? The current arrangements work surprising;y well with the one exception that our HOS is not an elected Australian.
RobV.
“…bound by convention.” Something of a contradiction in terms don’t you think. The Senate was “bound by convention” pass supply in 75.
Kerr was “bound by convention” to take the advice of the PM!!!
Convention isn’t being bound. Convention is convention.
By the way, I am not a monarchist and the British monarch has no role in telling our PM what to do. I used the example above as an illustration of what an elected Australian as HOS could realistically do politically if they were placed in a similar role constitutionally as the British monarch is now.
Typical things an elected HOS could do under such an arrangement are the kinds of things current GGs are doing – opening agricultural shows, visiting schools, attending official kind of events, visiting remote communities, visiting hospitals, etc. One problem since Howard as PM is that the PM has started to assume many of the roles of a HOS, at least when there are winners on a podium to greet. The mandate of an elected HOS is to make sure our government is inclusive and fair, listens to people and works to alleviate disadvantage in our community. The way they would do that is through example and experience, rather than by political bullying. It would be a different kind of power, and it would be the kind of action that would endear an elected HOS with the Australian people – even if they can’t actually do anything politically to change things.
Bryce,
Westminster parliamentary democracy wouldn’t work without convention. In the US it is convention that limits a President’s number of terms to two. In our constitution there is no mention of the Prime Minister, the constitution assumes that it will work within a system of conventions. That’s also why it would be so difficult to codify powers such as the Reserve Powers. If you spell out the conventions in legal language you can be sure that there would be lawyers combing through every clause looking for technical loopholes. Kerr broke convention and he paid personally for it. Conventions can be broken and there are usually penalties for doing so, at least socially. As they say, liberal democracy is the least worse of political systems in modern states.
I’m afraid this discussion has lost me. I thought the head of state and highest office in the land is the captain of the Australian cricket team (test match not one day unless both are concurrent appointments).
RobV, not quite. The two-term limit on US presidents is imposed by the 22nd Amendment.
BBB
Thanks BBB,
I was wrong.
Twenty-second Amendment (Amendment XXII) of the United States Constitution
Its a good example of how to deal with the breaking of a long standing convention. If a convention has been broken it could trigger a movement to prevent a similar breach in the future by formally codifying relevant aspects of a convention and putting it to a referendum.
Returning back to the initial topic for this post, I should perhaps disclose that I ran as an independent candidate in the seat of Wentworth during the federal election in 2004 – in the vain hope of debating these Copernican republic models during the election. It certainly wasn’t to be and I would have been hopelessly unprepared if the idea would have actually been discussed in public at that time…
The day after Turnbull took over the Liberal leadership, the headline on the front page of the OO (which I didn’t buy) proclaimed “Turnbull takes control of the economy”.
Excuse me! This guy is in opposition! Does that newspaper operate in a kind of parallel universe?
Helen, The Australian has been operating in a parallel universe at least since last November. (As I’m sure you would agree.)
What sort of democracy is this where most Australians want an Aussie as head-of-state and for nearly ten fucking years they don’t get it?
The UK Monarchy is already in strife with the EU because it discriminates against women and Catholics and two democratically elected Australian governments have already been sacked without notice by this vile institution.
Then there are the manifestly harmful influences on the immediate families of Royals and their malign influence on the economy overall. Enough!
All republic – all the time ALP and take our bloody lead for a change!
Sod the Republic. All we need do is pass a bill through the parliament (not a referendum … lets call the bill an Act Of Australian Settlement) that states “XYZ is the legitimate heir of Queen Victoria if situation 123 occurs”. And we’re done – an Australian Head of State. I vote; a yearly lottery of all registered voters.
Here’s the text of the Bill;
SECTION 1. ROYAL LOTTERY
1.1. Each year on December 26 a lottery shall be held.
1.2. All registered voters who are citizens of the Commonwealth shall be entered into the lottery, hereafter known as “The Contestants”.
1.3. The Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate (hereafter “The Judges”) shall jointly oversee the running of the lottery.
1.4. Any citizen who desires to do so may witness the drawing of the Lottery.
SECTION 2. WINNERS
2.1. One winner (hereafter “The Winner”) shall be randomly selected from the pool of Contestants.
2.1. No correspondence shall be entered into with any Contestant or other party by The Judges in any matter concerning the Lottery.
SECTION 3. WINNERS
3.1. The Winner is awarded the Prize solely and not jointly.
i) The Prize is not transferable by the Winner to any other party.
ii) In the event of the Death or other incapacity of the Prize Winner, a suffect Winner shall be randomly drawn from the original contestants.
iii) The Winner may give up the Prize at any time, prvided they personally defray the cost of drawing another Winner, within 7 days, as per section ii of part 3.1 of this bill.
SECTION 4. PRIZES
4.1. The Prize is hereby designated to be the Legal Heir to the Throne of Australia, as pursuant to the preamble of the Constitution.
4.2. The Prize is strictly time-limited. This is hereby desiginated as the Term Of The Prize.
i) the start date of the Prize is January 1 of the following year
ii) the end date of the Prize is December 31 of the following year
iii) suffect winners take office immediately and their term expires on the original expiration date.
4.3. No correspondence will be entered into by the Judges over the winning of the Prize. Acceptance of the Prize is compulsory.
4.4. Parliament shall award the Prize Winner a tax-free amount of money not exceeding Five Million dollars for the upkeep of the Winner during the Term of The Prize.
4.5. Winners must defray all costs incurred during the Term of the Prize from money awarded by Parliament or from personal bequests.
SECTION 5. DUTIES OF THE PRIZE WINNER
5.1. All business interests must be suspended or managed in Trust during the Term of the Prize.
5.2. Prize Winners must attend both grand finals and all Test Cricket and Rugby matches played in the Commonwealth.
5.3. All other duties of the Winner are outlined in the Constitution.
SECTION 6. HONOURS, STYLES AND TITLES
6.1. The Prize Winner shall be officially styled as The Queen, regardless of gender.
i) This style of title is valid only for the Term of The Prize.
ii) On expiry of the Term, former winners may use the style of title “The Old Queen”.
6.2. Citizens of the Commonwealth shall refer to the Prize Winner in his or her presence during the Term as
i) “Queenie”
ii) “Your Winningest”
iii) “You There”
iv) “The Royal Drongo”
v) If the Winner has previously won the prize, that is they are drawn by the Judges for a second or subsequent Term, they may take the style “The Royal Spangled Drongo”.
6.3. No other style of title or address is permissable.
Klaus -
Yes. Of course you do. Everyone does – except the Shadow Men who run the world.
.
It was the bane of that part of my life given to political agency that I had to explain to my nice lefty-liberal comrades that it’s all very well to endlessly discuss the ethics of this or that activity. But in political terms it is a waste of time.
.
Machiavelli says: “The fact is that a man who wants to act virtuously in every way necessarily comes to grief among so many who are not virtuous.”. He was not the ruthless technocrat that people deem him to be. He was a Republican and a revolutionary and, unlike most of us armchair aspirants to this honour, he suffered physical pain for it.
.
He also said that the “good example has such an influence that the good men strive to imitate [it], and the wicked are ashamed to lead a life so contrary to [this] example.
.
It is between these two maxims that those who wish politics to be something more than mere struggle i’th’ pecking order need to dwell. Know that the United States was the first (ironically nowadays) to successfully defy Empire. But to do so required not just the fine words of Messrs Paine, Jefferson et al but military prowess and alliance with an even more nefarious imperial order.
.
The trouble with Left is that they strive primarily for a purity they mistake for virtue; they have no interest in victory. Without victory there is no point.
One is successful as a leader if one is victorious. Turnbull was not victorious. His lack thereof probably had a lot to do with the elitist assumptions rife within the ARM. In this case the marginalization of alternative conceptions of the Republic did contribute to failure. In most cases however bullying can win success as can manipulation.
.
The manipulation of John Howard when he set up the Republican preamble in precisely a way destined to failure.
BBB – Is ‘Turnball’ a joke?
.
No. A spelling error.
.
Martin B -
.
Then there will be no question of the President having a mandate to oppose the PM.
.
No. But what really matter in politics as in life is what you can do and what you can’t do. The challenge for anyone designing a new constitution is to make sure the Prez can’t do more than s/he’s supposed to.
.
Personally considering that the OZ people are disinclined to change any time before Her Royal Travesty Betty Battenberg drops dead I think the play by Republicans is to examine all the ways in which the constitution might be improved. And remember, this time, to leave it to the People to make up their minds.
“It was the bane of that part of my life given to political agency that I had to explain to my nice lefty-liberal comrades that it’s all very well to endlessly discuss the ethics of this or that activity. But in political terms it is a waste of time.”
I’m sure they really appreciated your condescending to assist them in this matter. I would argue that ethical and moral interventions that refigure the terrain of politics are a constant feature of the political as such.
The thing is, Adrien, all you seem to want to do here is come along with a succession of ‘harsh truths’ for those you position as naive or ineffectual, but in this case there is a whole lot of ambivalence in the delivery of that. Hence you concede the point, but treat it as your own:
“It is between these two maxims that those who wish politics to be something more than mere struggle i’th’ pecking order need to dwell.”
In other words, the broader terrain of the ethico-political IS relevant to the practice of politics in your own account. This is precisely what Paul is implying, as am I.
Tyro Rex [55]:
Brilliant! Bloody brilliant! And entirely in tune with Australian Cultural Values.
Such a pity you weren’t on that plonkies’ barge in the Hawksbury River, over a century ago, when Federation and the Constitution were being cobbled together. It would have saved us a lot of grief, lost opportunities and a fortune in squandered revenue.
Klaus -
No Paul is saying mean Mr Turnbull was nasty to one of his students. He lied about her. Oh really? It’s called politics.
.
As for my ‘condescending’ I would like you to take a look around the world these days or any fucking days. Are your nice left-liberal pals running the show? Did they ever? No. They ain’t and never did. Guess why?
.
Again and again and a fucking ‘gain the story is the same. Something happens so… let’s call a meeting, let’s endlessly debate things, let’s split hairs, let’s move a motion. Seen Life of Brian? Muggeridge thought Cleese et al were making fun of Christianity. No mate they were making fun of you. And meantime those who know what the game is – to acquire and maintain power – acquire it and maintain it. And you make it easy.
.
I didn’t concede any point nor did I make it my own. I made the point that Paul didn’t and neither did you. Your point was: Oh boo hoo hoo it’s a nasty world.
.
You want to have a positive influence on republicanism or whatever? Here’s the play: you concede there’s two sides. You join the one you’re on and you fight to get your items on the agenda. What you don’t do is form your own comfortable yet underfunded and underpublicized (hence totally useless) little group who will then be smeared into irrellevance by the big boys.
.
But that would mean, y’know, like competing n’ stuff. Can’t do that can we.
In other words, the broader terrain of the ethico-political IS relevant to the practice of politics in your own account.
.
No. No no no no! No!!!!!!!!!
.
In other words the game of politics has nothing to do inherently with all the nice stuff you stand so bravely for when raising your glass of claret at cozy faculty dos. No. It is totally unnecessary.
.
What I am saying is if you want to have the machine do something other than grind skulls into the dirt for a change it’s very very difficult because you have to walk the razor’s edge. You have to face unpleasant facts. You have to get your hands dirty and walk in the mire, you have to be a bastard sometime.
.
But forget it man. The claret’s gone. Time to open the mourvedre. Here’s to Lacan. Apparently he looked in a mirror.
Nice screed, Adrien! Have you thought about why Paul is telling that particular story? There are some clues at the beginning of the post. If the point were “Oh boo hoo hoo it’s a nasty world”, why invoke Kelly? Why make a calculated intervention into political discourse and value – here framed in terms of leadership – from the terrain of the ethico-political? Were Paul doing what you suggest, he would’ve left that bit out.
Like Turnbull, you also seem to have trouble with evaluating scale. Paul is making a very small intervention here, that much is clear. You are trying to make it signify the willed insularity and inaction of left-liberalism in general, or something, but that is just not a story that can be supported by the scale of, say, a blog post or a blog comment, or for that matter an entire blog. Everything may be a symptom for you, or an episode in your preferred narrative, but I think that your story is incredibly boring, and what’s more there is just not enough here to sustain it convincingly for anybody but yourself. I mean, do you have any awareness of the various contexts in which posters and commentors here have ‘gotten their hands dirty’, in both small and large struggles? Frankly we have enough simple-minded dickheads on the left already who assert that writing about the ethics of this or that precludes real, risky political action, to in any benefit from reading your version of the same.
There will always be people who are obsessed with power and most people with any sense know that there is power in numbers. A safe political system is one where there are many checks and balances and where one small group of society can not utterly dominate. Discussion about a model for a republic is important so that we can have a safe political system well into the future, well after today’s greeds are as spent as dust. There will always be people jockeying for power and to be at the front of the pack. The republic as an issue is, by analogy, more about designing the race track and rules for the race rather than running in the political race itself. There is more to setting up a republic than fitting a fancy feather in your own hat so that you can prance around with the filly crowd at the races, come the spring racing carnival. Success at this stage of the republic issue has to do with carefully designing a system that is better than what we have and that is safe in that it preserves our liberal democracy.
Grahamn Bell @ 59
I couldn’t think of anything more democratic than a lottery. But my idea was too late for the constitutional convention. and those 2020 buggers weren’t having any of it.
But there is a serious side to it; that is, read the constitution. You will see that “The Constitution” is clearly referred to in the The Preamble as the bit AFTER the Preamble. And it is the PREAMBLE that defines “The Queen” as meaning “Queen Victoria and her legitimate heirs”. Now of course, this is where it gets interesting. If the English Parliament can pass an ACT OF SETTLEMENT (1701) enforcing rules as to the succession of the English Crown to make William of Orange the heir to Charles II and not his brother not that Catholic recidivist James II … so the Australian Parliament can do likewise. WE DON’T NEED A REPUBLIC REFERENDUM. We can just redefine what a legitimate heir of Queen Victoria is – in case, the winner of an annual lottery. Problem solved. It’s fair (anyone can win), it doesn’t change the existing arrangement of a parliamentary democracy run by a cabinet of ministers, and it doesn’t allow a head of state to claim anything like a mandate. Plus the monarchists get to keep “The Queen”.
Tyro Rex @ 64
Without having studied law it looks like it might be possible to change the Second Covering Clause: “The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.”
Constitutional Centenary Foundation Factsheet 1.6, 1996
The title we give the HOS could be left to Commonwealth legislation, such as the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 for example, while the text of the Constitution could be left largely as it is with the elected HOS still being referred to as the “Queen” and the representative of the HOS (appointed VP) continuing to be referred to as the Governor-General in the Constitution proper.
The requirement to have a wide agreement on a title for our HOS as an essential precondition for a move to a republic is something of a red herring. The title could be changed as appropriate over time through an Act of Parliament, using this approach.
Klaus -
.
My story Klaus? What story is that? I’m making a point not a story. You seem to be emburden’d enough understanding the point. Perhaps you only imagine the story.
.
.
Actually yes. I do. The etiquette as I understand it deems it bad form to discuss such stuff in any detail here. I made a few coy refs to Mark’s student hack days a few weeks back. That’s as far as I’ll go.
.
And may I suggest sir that if I was behaving as you are I woulda got told off by now. ‘Stupid dickhead’? – oh yes you didn’t say it directly but we all know what you mean. The fact is that the liberal-left are marginalized in English speaking countries at the minute. True in Australia and perhaps soon in the US their preferred governments are standing. But their preferred governments would prefer it if the luvvies wouldn’t stand so close to them at certain times, in certain places.
.
Rather than taking stock of the situation with a view to strategic reform the tendency is to dismiss and besmirch any heresy to which one has no answer. I suppose the trouble with never actually leaving school is that one never needs to acquire that most essential attribute: the capacity to take criticism constructively.
There’s a tactic whereby in the absence of concrete rebuttal there’s a resolution to distorting the opponent’s argument and/or dismissing it (so boring darling)
.
I didn’t suggest anything of the kind.
.
What I actually said is that the attack on Tunrbull’s ethics – the standard ethics of mainstream politics – is inadequate. Paul’s critique of Turnbull might be, as you say, a small matter. An anecdote. However it is framed as a rebuttal to Turnbull’s spin machine: his Cult of Personality and by extension his Stupid Cult of Minimal Republicanism. If it’s small stuff why mention it next to the Big Stuff? Tales of Turnbull’s shitsheeting are strictly for the n’ah n’ah n’ah file: Who cares!
.
The anecdote is not in any way a devastatin’ critique of this part of the mainstream republican movement. I really like Paul’s ‘Stupid Cult’ riffs but I don’t think they apply to the ARM. Or at least he hasn’t demonstrated that they do.
.
Australians are marked constitutional conservatives. For good reasons. I myself believe that the Republic is an opportunity for constitutional progress. I think Turnbull is wrong. I think the whole bunch of ‘em are thinking of their place in the history books and want to get the thing done now to facilitate that.
.
And the counter-republicans are not helping. They wanna rush in too. Without really considering even the criticisms of the monarchists which are apt. The irony of the situation is that the more radical you are on the republic the less likely you are to stop the Grey Men fucking it up because you’re just so eager to get it done now! Don’t spend a lot of time on a brilliant new constitution. Just get the juggernaut scarperin’ down on the target asap – before the Tories get back in.
.
The Australian people are right. Slow down and wait ’til Bess kicks the bucket. Meantime speculate on the Federated Republic of Australia. And start with the good questions monarchists ask. But no. They’re boring darling.
.
If this is the standard by which we conduct battle we will lose. Great! The Left love losing. It – a. enables them to take the moral high ground. and b. exonerates ‘em from actually having to do something like write laws n’ shit.
Totally random selection of the ultimate Head of State is far better than opening it up to politics, which is the inescapable consequence of all republican models. Congratulations Tyro Rex 55 for promoting a model more likely to have greater reassurance for the enforcement of our constitutional democracy. Leaving all constitutional mandate to political processes is openning up the whole process to tyranny, as the political forces can themselves end up considering themselves superior to the enforcing of constitutional democracy. However if constitutional democracy is somehow meant to be ultimately protected and enforced by someone without the foggiest political mandate or hence agenda, then this can only be achieved by something where there is no active choice by anyone, whether it be by lottery of picking a number, or by the lottery of birth. Repealing the Act of Settlement 1701 ab initio would be one easy way to ensure Australia a unique ultimate HOS. It would retain the whole heritage aspect of the job, but at the same time make a clear statement about the injustices brought on through the sectarian bigotry which foisted on us the coup de tat of the English Puritans in 1688. But anyone (even someone we don’t like) as constitutional monarch chosen either through a pure lottery or birth, would be better than such person climbing to a presidential equivalent through their winning of political favours with the establishment. The ancient Athenians had the lottery system, and this would be much preferrable to having to endure one more political ego foisted upon us every presidential term.