The appointment of Quentin Bryce has revived the discussion about whether, when and in what form Australia should become a republic. Regrettably, the discussion has also brought with it reminders that some people, such as Bronwyn Bryceson, have learned nothing and forgotten nothing since the 1999 referendum.
It should hardly be necessary to remind people that in order to win a Constitutional referendum, it is necessary to convince, not only a majority of voters, but a majority of voters in a majority of states, to vote for the change being proposed. In other words there is a strong message, implicit in the Australian process of constitutional change itself, that certain important decisions must only be made through a process which vests the final say with the average citizen.
This, of course, presents a peculiar difficulty for advocates of non-elective models of an Australian republic. They must attempt to persuade ordinary voters, in the context of a process in which ordinary voters are trusted to make an important decision, that it is not desirable for ordinary voters to be enabled to decide who the Head of State should be.
Continue reading ‘The minimalist malaise, or, how to lose friends and alienate people’
It’s been reported, albeit somewhat prejudicially, that Queensland Labor Premier Anna Bligh believes Queensland could legislate to become a republic.
Not being a constitutional lawyer, I would defer to the advice of others on how feasible such a move would be, either in Queensland or the other Australian States. However, if we assume that the Australian States could adopt republican State Constitutions in parallel with the Commonwealth being a constitutional monarchy, it offers an interesting way around the impasse in the republic debate.
One of the advantages of Australian federalism is that it enables policy innovation and experimentation. New policies, new processes and new institutions which are introduced in one state can be emulated by other states and nationally if they are successful. If they aren’t successful, the negative consequences will be confined to one state which will presumably abandon the innovation.
Continue reading ‘A federation of Australian republics?’
The discussion about the appointment of the next Governor-General has brought about a reappearance of some of the tendencies which led to the republican cause self-destructing in the late 1990s.
Before discussing these, however, it’s only fair that I acknowledge the extent to which Australia’s key republican organisations and many leading republican individuals have taken on board the lessons of the 1999 referendum. At a Griffith University-sponsored conference in November 2002, leading minimalist republican intellectuals such as Glyn Davis, George Winterton and Paul Kelly stated that, their personal preferences notwithstanding, the republican cause in Australia could only progress if the direct election option was seriously considered. Australia’s three most important republican political organisations - the Labor Party, the Greens and the Australian Republican Movement - are fundamentally in agreement about the process by which Australians should decide whether, and in what form, Australia becomes a republic, namely a series of plebiscites on the general principle of support for a republic and choice of a method of electing the head of state culminating in a constitutional referendum. The ARM accepts that models based on direct election should be seriusly considered as part of this process.
Nonetheless, there are still some slow learners in some republican quarters.
Continue reading ‘Republican pathologies persist’
Some of you may have noticed that cricket has dominated the news for the past few days. The aftermath of the Sydney test has released a wave of recriminations, hyperbole and effigy burning not seen for many a year.
First off, cricket will survive this brouhaha as it survived Bodyline, Ray Illingworth taking his players off the field, regular attempts by Pakistan to take their bat and go home, Sunil Gavaskar not liking an Aussie umpire’s decision back in 1981 (which was a little cheeky given the standard of umpiring that faced any team touring the sub-continent around that time) and Dennis the menace’s infamous aluminum bat.
The state of play at the moment in this sorry saga is that India seem happy that their umpiring scourge, Steve Bucknor, has been dropped from the Third Test in Perth. And this was the correct decision by the ICC (International Cricket Council). Bucknor had a shocker and is at the end of the long career as an umpire. It would be better for him to bow out gracefully and take an administrative role.
Continue reading ‘So who benefits from the Australia v India cricket stoush?’
This week, my tutorials in one of the courses I teach are on the roles of Parliament, Cabinet and Prime Minister in the Australian political system. Two of the things the students are expected to know by the end of the tutes are that (a) one of the functions of Parliament is to approve supply and (b) the Senate has the power to block bills originating in the House of Representatives.
Yesterday, after satisfying myself that the students in both classes knew both these points, I asked the students if they could name a significant event in Australian history revolving around these aspects of the Constitution. Only one out of 39 students could tell me that this event was the dismissal of the Whitlam government, and even she was unable to be specific about the constitutional issues at stake.
Continue reading ‘Lest We Keep Forgetting’
The following is the text of a letter I’ve written to a couple of newspapers about a major obstacle to the republican cause in Australia. Comments are invited.
*********************
With the Queen’s 80th birthday reviving discussion of a possible Australian republic, it’s worth considering what history tells us about how and why countries become republics.
Virtually all existing republics have come into being as a result of a defining discontinuity in those countries’ histories – an anti-monarchical revolution as in France or Russia, defeat in war as in Germany, or a successful independence struggle as in the US, India, or Ireland. In each case the defining discontinuity entailed a rejection of not only the symbolism of monarchy – in Walter Bagehot’s terms, the “dignified functions� of government - but also the substantive monarchical institutions of state (Bagehot’s “effective functions� of government) which had become dysfunctional or discredited.
In a few countries including Australia, the UK and some northern European states, there has been a largely evolutionary growth of democracy throughout the effective functions of government and a concomitant withdrawal of the monarchy behind the walls of the dignified functions. One historical consequence for such countries is that abolishing the monarchy has ceased to be a major democratic or social justice priority for most liberal and radical political actors, and the residual symbolism of monarchy is simply not a problem in ordinary citizens’ lives.
This may well mean that republicanism in societies such as Australia will not succeed unless it can find a way to convince most citizens that the question of the republic versus the monarchy is both worth caring about, and more fundamental than the question of which kind of republic we want.
Pardon the alliteration, but yesterday the Governor-General, Michael Jeffery, put the Federal Government, the Murdoch press and their mates like Martin Ferguson to shame with a timely speech on the dangers of global warming and other environmental problems.
In today’s Age, Waleed Aly discusses the disturbing possibilities of a provision in the Federal Government’s “anti-terrorism” laws which creates the crime of financing terrorism. It appears that if the bill is passed in its current form, even people who donate to charities could find themselves arraigned on charges carrying a life sentence.
When the anti-apartheid struggle boiled up in the mid-1980s, it fell to me, on behalf of my then employer, to appeal for and administer the collection of donations to a solidarity fund for the African National Congress. Some commentaries on the draft “anti-terror” laws have suggested that they could be interpreted sufficiently broadly to include the ANC in the definition of a “terrorist organisation”. This is not hypothetical scaremongering, as those of us who remember the 1980s also remember that the ANC was regarded as such by much of the Anglophone Right including the Reagan administration in the US and many in the Liberal and National Parties, not to mention the National Civic Council. If the laws are made retrospective to 1985, I could find myself sharing a cell with Malcolm Fraser!
I’ve had an interesting day today, helping to organise two functions to commemorate the sacking of popularly elected governments. The second was with Don Carlos, the Mayor of the City of Joondalup, who was suspended along with his council but ultimately praised by the McIntyre Inquiry for the principled position he had adopted since before his election. Carlos demanded the resignation of CEO Denis Smith, who had faked his qualifications; Liberal-aligned councillors defended the CEO’s dodgy behaviour. We’re now awaiting a Ministerial decision about the future of the council.
But as I’m under strict instructions that today is for Whitlam-related posts, I won’t bore you with those details. Instead, I want to discuss the first of today’s events, with special guest Lindsay Tanner. We already knew what Tanner was going to say to us, because an abridged version of his speech was published in The Australian this morning, a potted summary was on the front page, and it was getting a pretty good run on the radio. Labor, said Tanner, should get over the Dismissal, and get on with more important things.
Continue reading ‘Should we still maintain the rage?’
Although no other blog has gone to the lengths that LP has (we’ve been dubbed by Flutey Larvatus Prodeo’s Bleeding Hearts Club Band), there are quite a few interesting posts around today.
Continue reading ‘Remembering The Dismissal: Around the Blogosphere’
Here is an interesting picture. It was taken by John Lamb in September 1976, and it is clearly posed, inasmuch as the photographer has obviously asked the subjects to stand ‘just so’ and attempt to smile forbearingly at one another (through clenched teeth if necessary, and I guess it was necessary).
Continue reading ‘Muesli vs. Cornflakes’
I wasn’t alive when Whitlam was dismissed. My first memory of an election was asking my grandparents whether they were going to vote for the man who wanted to save the fossils, or the man who wanted to destroy them with a dam (1983, Bob Hawke, the Franklin Dam). I thought that fossils were colourful and fluffy plants — like the kind you see in Dr Seuss books, and was distressed that anyone could wanted to destroy something precious and rare. Luckily for me, Labor won and the dam did not go ahead.
Continue reading ‘Where to now?’
It is worth remembering that the May 1974 Federal election was a fairly close-run affair, with the early edition of the Sunday papers reporting a Whitlam landslide, the next one reporting Labor returned with a reduced majority, and the late edition reporting Malcolm Mackerras’s judgement, at the close of counting, that the election was a cliffhanger.
This raises the question: how might Australian history have been different had the Coalition won the 1974 election?
Continue reading ‘It’s Counterfactual Time’
I was two when Whitlam was sacked. However, I think I may still have an interesting perspective on it - in part because I’m a bit of a cosmopolitan - having an American dad, and having lived in the States for quite a few years. So I grew up hearing kitchen table and living room debates about US politics as well as Australian politics. And if there was one guy my Dad hated it was Nixon. Following up on Mark’s post where he placed the Dismissal in the context of Australian and parliamentary history, I’d like to reflect on the upheavals that shook the world in 74 and 75.
Continue reading ‘Whitlam, Nixon, Heath: Globalise the Dismissal!’
When I was two and a half my parents sat me down and gave me the facts of life. A man in a funny hat had perhaps got a little tired and emotional at the Melbourne races, decided to take matters into his own hands and turfed the government. Remember this day, they said, there will never be another one like it.
When I was thirty-two my parents gave me the full story.
Continue reading ‘If you go down to the woods’
Recent comments
Helen, wizofaus, wilful, FDB, Don't let your son go down on me, Robert Merkel [...]
David Rubie, dk.au
David Rubie, Liam, David Rubie, Liam, Paul Burns, Sans Blog [...]
jo, Helen, Paulus, terangeree, Darlene, Helen [...]
wizofaus, Jane, Paulus, dj, wizofaus, Desipis [...]
Jane, zorronsky, Adrien, David Rubie, Paul Burns, David Irving (no relation) [...]
jo, Nabakov, Adrien, Mark, Ambigulous, Adrien [...]
David Rubie, Don't let your son go down on me, I won't let your Mum go down on me, Don't let your son go down on me, Helen, Rubie, don't make your love go down [...]
dylwah, Desipis, Fine, Matt C, Alister, Chris (a different one) [...]
jo, Posey, GregM, Ambigulous, Ambigulous, Posey [...]
Katz, Adrien, j_p_z, Patrick B, Patrick B, Lloyd [...]
Brian, marks, Elizabeth Hart, Elizabeth Hart, Peterc, Peterc [...]